Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Do we need the Monarchy and a fairer Political system

So with the way the world is going do we still need a Monarchy

The simple reason really is to be a full and true democracy we should be able to elect a Head of State not for it to be a Birth right

Yes I know they bring in a lot of business but that would still happen with an elected Head of State

With all the scandals and recently the amount of money the Government has given the Royal family, then for the KIng to be exempt to paying inheritance tax when everyone else has to pay is way out of date and then to top it off the Coronation with a man and his mistress who aren't paying for it the state is

More so with the state the UK is in with so many strikes, low wages, more food banks than Macd outlets

The voting system of first past the post doesn't work the fairer system would be proportional representation as there are far too many "safe seats" on all Parties and that needs to change

We should also have a say who is elected into the House of Lords and not all these mates of who ever was the last PM

Then MPs should also then only have the one job, one wage without a second home, Expenses, free bars and restaurants

If an MP then breaks the Ministerial code then they should have to step down and have a by election
Nanoose · 61-69, M
I don't think they are needed and it would be more of a democracy if the head of state was elected. I also don't think the king of England (especially Charles) should be Canada's military's Commander In Chief - it should be a Canadian like my neighbour who served in the Canadian military most of his life. Cheers!
OldBrit · 61-69, M
My wife is a staunch and active anti-monarchy campaigner. Every five minutes at the moment she's moaning about the £100 million the coronation is costing us.

I'm a campaigner for PR however neither big party will ever support it as they know it means highly unlikely they will ever get to be in power in their own again. Bit it reflects better the profile of the population, means everyone has a vote that counts etc etc
OldBrit · 61-69, M
@ninalanyon that was an appalling referendum. The method proposed wasn't proportional representation at all just an alternative vote option and it was terribly explained as well. That only was held as the tory administration had to to get the lib Dems into government when they had a minority.

We have only ever had true PR available in the elections to the European Parliament and we lost that with leaving the EU.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@OldBrit Alternative vote would still have been a, slight, improvement.
OldBrit · 61-69, M
@ninalanyon I don't disagree but not the same as proper PR.
Lauren19 · 26-30, F
I agree with pretty much all of that. On the subject of "the money they bring in" nobody ever seems to be able to put an accurate, fact-checked figure on it. And, what people that say this don't seem to consider is that they cannot be erased from history. So they would still "bring money in". Buckingham Palace, for example could be a very lucrative museum, as could other sites.
Lauren19 · 26-30, F
@Strictmichael75 I think you've misunderstood what I've said. I want them gone.
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
@Lauren19 Yes, and it’s possible
They are already loosing a lot of support
There are other Royal families but most have no powers
Lauren19 · 26-30, F
@Strictmichael75 And your point is..?
Entwistle · 56-60, M
We don't need a monarchy at all. They wouldn't have to be replaced by anything.
milkymum1 · 31-35, F
@Entwistle They'd have to be replaced by something as we'd need a Head of State
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@milkymum1 What for? They have no power, or so the apologists keep saying. So why do they still exist. Parliament is sovereign and can do as it wishes regardless of what the head of state wants.
Entwistle · 56-60, M
@milkymum1 No they wouldn't.
carpediem · 61-69, M
I don't care what you do, but please, please, take Harry and his wacky wife back would you? Thanks in advance.
We don’t need chuck and his horse..
alan20 · M
I very much agree with you. The monarchy should be phased out, starting with Andrew and his mistresses, Harry and his wife, and others who are not pulling their weight. Apart from the financial cost they are symbols of a hierarchical outlook alien to ideas of an accountable democracy.
4meAndyou · F
Your ancient traditions and history are that of a monarchy. You'll probably recall that modern Parliament was created around the time of the Magna Carta. Around the time that the French were cutting off the heads of their monarchs, England refrained.

Your kings were so prone to abuse of their powers that they had to be curtailed somehow. George III is one example, and one whom Americans remember fondly.

On that note, it would require something of a revolution to remove the monarchy in the UK. Most of the people love the queens and kings, and you'd be fighting your own people to initiate such a change.
milkymum1 · 31-35, F
@4meAndyou well the polls suggest that to be a rebuplic are as high as when it was at the highest in the 90s as many don't want Charles as Kind let alone Camilla as Queen

if anything would happen a referendum would be held
4meAndyou · F
@milkymum1 I understand Camilla is a witch on wheels. BUT...William and that lot appear to be an improvement.
DaveE54 · 51-55, M
Nope but they do bring a lot of revenue into the country and it is nice to have some history I guess
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
@DaveE54 He could have paid for his coronation, tourism
Brings in money for the state!
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@DaveE54 I've heard that France earns more than the UK from its royal history even though it no longer has a king or queen. No idea if it is actually true though.
cherokeepatti · 61-69, F
@DaveE54 perhaps they could work on other ways to build their tourism.
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
We can't just focus on one branch of government. The executive is so powerful that an elected head of state would be just as token and ineffective as the current incumbent. I would pay MPs whatever they need to keep their minds on the job and stop them from seeking other employment, have a small and indirectly elected upper house of properly salaried representatives to scrutinise legislation, and have the whole lot overseen by a monarch acting more as a chairman than an appointee of god. Not so bothered about the expense - most Britons appear to think it is value for money - but yes it is a bit crass in the current economic climate.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
@SunshineGirl The chair of such a scrutiny committee does not need to be a hereditary position, nor does it need to be for life. And it certainly doesn't need possession of a vast fortune nor a huge income. It can just be a civil service position or one like the speaker of the House of Commons.
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
@ninalanyon It certainly could be and instinctively I would prefer that. But whatever the shortcomings of the current system, it enjoys popular support and a surprising amount of consensus. That cannot be overlooked in a healthy democracy.
SW-User
I sometimes need a touch of colour, even a touch of something that makes no sense. Long live the King! He has a lot of unearned money - well not unusual! At least Charles is someone with a billion or so who actually has very little power, unlike many others who control the media and influence so many in so many underhand ways. Camilla I actually like. That said, little interest in the ceremonies as such. I won't be watching. Those camping out since tuesday to get a front-line view? Love them! Long may the nutters reign.
MarieUK · 36-40, F
Fairer Political system for sure one that is for the people, ome that does not line their own pockets and bank accounts along with their friends,
Sazzio · 31-35, M
Elected head of state or Monarchy? Zero difference. EH will simply do wha the Monarchy does.
nacnud · 31-35, M
Better rules to hold MPs to account to start with followed by PR. Removing the monarchy is much more complex than just replacing with an alternative head of states and would take decades to bring about.

For the realms outside the UK I'd agree it is better for someone in their own country to be the figurehead but ultimately it is their choice.
spjennifer · 56-60, T
The King of a Nation is supposed to be a Leader, unquestioningly loyal to His people, not some spoiled, sordid little pervert adulterer who couldn't keep his peepee in his panties. Neither chuckles nor cowmilla deserve to be King and Queen, which is which, I leave up to someone else to decide? 🥴
Canicu69 · 70-79, M
I wish I could get in this conversation, however I am from the US and our government is totally different. Not knowing anything about your, I w
Oils like to point out one important yhing that we need to change and that is “we need term limits” Career politicians become corrupt and power hungry.
helenS · 36-40, F
To me, as a non-British person, your post sounds a bit like the political program of the Liberal Party.
milkymum1 · 31-35, F
@helenS Not at all
helenS · 36-40, F
@milkymum1 I should have kept my mouth shut – I really don't know enough about political parties in the UK... sorry 😐
alan20 · M
I very much agree. But can the elected prime minister not do both roles?
Cowboybob · M
careful now...you're sounding like a democratic republican
Americans don't.
No debate.. unity. War.
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
Good for you
Human1000 · M
A republic! Why not just pull it back? Make it half the size? And please take Harry back.

 
Post Comment