Many thanks for all the very kind messages. I appear to be back on full fighting form again and will resume blogging shortly.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Too trivial to reply to @ 4.32pm and anyway I am off out to a thé dansant once I have changed into my frock and put on my dancing pumps. It’s all one big merry round.
Habby
It’s difficult to argue that comment on slebs is irrelevant to political debate in this country, since they and their doings are so central to much of public discourse.
They are very much the public face of wealth, and whilst often they act as distractions from more politically attuned wealth, they’re certainly a manifestation of what our culture and system has become.
@ Herbie :
“Best to have system closer to that of the US, with funding for political parties and no private lobbying, bribing nor any of the rest of the nonsense currently in vogue.
I’d aim too for the head of state to be chosen from outside the ranks of the political parties.
__________
Thank you for that.
I’m sure it’s entirely my fault, but I’m having a little difficulty following you completely.
In the first para you say a system “closer” to that of the US. Which other differences would you envisage other than the money aspect you go on to mention? Would you, for instance, retain the two essential features of the US system (direct universal suffrage and the Electoral College) as are?
You mention “funding” for political parties, which implies that Presidential candidates would be chosen by parties : is that correct?
If so, how would you reconcile that with your further idea that the Head of State should be chosen from outside the ranks of politicians? Would that be a realistic idea?
And a last thought : would it not be anti-democratic and discrimnatory to lay down that a serving or former politician should not be a candidate?
~~~~~~~~~~
I think this discussion has already revealed that it’s quite simple to say “get rid of the Monarchy” but slightly less simple to propose legal, realistic and practical alternatives. But perhaps Flaming June will come up with something none of us has thought of., this is why I should very much like her to join in.
[Mod/Jon: excessive commentary about Flaming June’s contributions – this question is a direct repeat anyway]
Dear Craig, good to know you’re on the mend. In your next blog please include as many details as you like as to the standard of the NHS treatment you have received. A useful way to build up an impression of the care provided is from many anecdotal accounts.
Best, Graham Derrick
Habby
To answer your last point first. You say;
“it’s quite simple to say “get rid of the Monarchy” but slightly less simple to propose legal, realistic and practical alternatives.”
seemingly unaware that many many countries have managed to do precisely that!!
leaving the reasonable suspicion that your curious complacency in this matter is borne of some personal or otherise beneficial interest in the status quo, and indeed negating your subsequent detailed questions on procedure.
Habby
It’d be remiss of me not to correct your schoolboy howler.
You suggest that it would be:
“anti-democratic and discrimnatory to lay down that a serving or former politician should not be a candidate”
yet the principle separating executive from legislature is fundamental to most systems of government, including our own, until the current botched system emanating from what your antecedents called The Glorious Revolution.
Make no mistake. Ours is a cobbled together nonsense which even old Tories like Quentin Hogg argued was an elective dictatorship. This is because in our system the executive and legislature are much more often than not, one and the same. With the Party system and whipping, it has just become worse and worse.
@ Herbie
“..seemingly unaware that many many countries have managed to do precisely that!!”
__________
No, I think you’ve misunderstood; I’m perfectly aware that other countries have worked out arrangements and have indeed pointed out what seem to be the two major options – direct election or election by Parliamentarians. I was asking you (and others) which of the above two options (or any other option) they’d advocate.
“..leaving the reasonable suspicion that your curious complacency in this matter is borne of some personal or otherise beneficial interest in the status quo..”
You’ll remember that Craig once asked contributors to stick to the subject matter and not speculate on the contributor’s motives (which, he said, they could anyway not know). So it would be more conducive to rational discussion here if you were not to voice your ‘suspicions’ and certainly not to use them as a pretext for avoiding legitimate questions as you appear to wish to do.
(You’ll find my questions at 16h48, above.)
Thank you.
@ Herbie
“You suggest that it would be:
“anti-democratic and discrimnatory to lay down that a serving or former politician should not be a candidate”
yet the principle separating executive from legislature is fundamental to most systems of government,…”
__________
I’m not quite sure where the schoolboy howler is, Herbie.
It happens to be the case that in most republics the President is a former politician (a legislator, if you will) and I’m sure you wouldn’t wish to accuse all those countries of blurring the line between the executive and the legislative, would you?
The point you also seem to have overlooked is that the party politician ceases, constitutionally, to be a party politician the moment he or she becomes President.
So, having cleared that up, do you feel like answering the couple of clarifications I asked for at 16h48?
Thank you.
PS – other anti-Monarchists (or indeed Monarchists), feel free to join in!
Habby
If the current system is a cobbled together nonsense, which it is, then why would anyone with an interest in the matter not wish to change it?
Further, why would anyone wish to retain it?
Eh?
That’s the first step, Habby. The desire for change.
As I’ve shown above, there is no argument that it’s impossible to change, however much you may wish to pretend that’s the case with the old bogging down in detail trick.
Since there’s no argument that it’s impossible to change our current system, for the moment we need only line up along Change or No Change.
It really is as simple as that.
Planet of the Arabs: A montage of Hollywood’s relentless vilification of Arabs and Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi1ZNEjEarw&feature=youtu.be
——————-
Why do you go as far afield as the U.S. to find a country where the people elect their president?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election,_2011
“The point you also seem to have overlooked is that the party politician ceases, constitutionally, to be a party politician the moment he or she becomes President.”
That’s part of the problem obviously. These party politicians will forever be linked to the legislature.
Perhaps you think we can just ask them to cross their hearts and hope to die should they let their old mates influence them, or you’re particularly enamoured of revolving door politics.
There are many many better people outside of politics than within, and it’d be a shame not to call upon their public service.
@ Herbie
I think I’ll make this the last one because it’s become fairly clear you don’t wish to answer the questions.
Let me just say that I don’t think I said that it was “impossible to change” from a monarchy to a republic. On the contrary, it’s perfectly possible to do so – most present day republics were once Monarchies. And you are in error in your belief that asking questions about how republicans would envisage the election of the President is “bogging down the discussion in details”. In the real world, Herbie – to all but simple blowhards – details are important, are they not?
You also said that “the desire to change” is the “first step”. That is true. But is it not also true that it is for those who wish to change from the status quo to make their case for doing so? This, I regret to note, you have also failed to do.
So, in summary
– you have not tried to make a reasoned case for changing from a Monarchy to a republic
– you have failed, or are unwilling, to answer a few eminently practical questions to which such a change would ineluctably give rise.
Sir Humphrey says:
“- you have not tried to make a reasoned case for changing from a Monarchy to a republic”
I have. Several times. I’ve pointed out that anyone who knows anything about the British Constitution knows that it’s a hodge podge, poorly cobbled together and resulting in what Lord Hailsham has called an elective dictatorship.
That’s reason enough to change it. It’s certainly more than reason enough to question the bona fides of anyone trumpeting the current system as the best thing since sliced bread.
“- you have failed, or are unwilling, to answer a few eminently practical questions to which such a change would ineluctably give rise.”
There’s no need to get bogged down in the details at this stage. These are things that a Commission would look at, over a long period of time I’d imagine.
All you need to know is that the system needs changing. You’re either for that or against it.
What we certainly don’t want is any attempt by you to pretend that any change is so horribly complex that we’d best leave well enough alone, and that’s all you’re up to.
Typical vested interest bureaucrat, in fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_presidential_election
Habbas. 4 07pm
” “Habbabkuk” is third person singular.”
Don’t be silly Dads!
@ Herbie
I shall now resume the discussion as you have moved away (wisely) from the theme of Monarchy/Republic wrt to the Head of State to the theme of the “Constitution” writ large, ie the political system applying in the UK.
Firstly, let us leave aside as unworthy
1) your by now usual suppositions as to motive (“Sir Humphrey”, my “bona fides” and “typical vested interest bureaucrat”; these are not arguments;
2) your assertions (“trumpeting the current system as the best thing since sliced bread” and “pretending that any change is horribly complex”); these are inaccurate ans well as not being arguments.
On the substance of your argument – such as it is – I would say the following two things:
1/. You appear to be saying that the British (unwritten) constitution needs to be changed because it is a “poorly cobbled together hodge-podge which has led to an “elective dictatorship”.
Given that these judgements of yours are subjective (there are many who would disagree) and leaving aside for the moment that there is no (written) constitution of long standing in the world that has not, like the UK constitution, evolved over time (in the case of written constitutions, by way of “amendments to the Constitution”), I’d be interested if you could flesh out in just a little detail in which way(s) the UK constitution is a “poorly cobbled together hodge podge, and also what you would consider to be the essential features of a new constitution that would meet with your approval.
This leads me to my second point, which is really a variant on the point above :
2/. Although I recognise its attractiveness (and convenience) as an argument, I’m not convinced that “all you need to know is that the system needs changing” but that there is no need for any, even broad, detail at this stage. I don’t think that its intellectually (as opposed to emotionally) valid to say something needs to be changed without having much of a clue what is wrong with the present system and what should be the main features of the new, supposedly better system. Hence my invitation to you under point 1.
Remember now – we have moved away from the Monarchy, at your volition, so please keep your arguments focussed on your new theme of choice, the UK constitution and don’t move inot yet something else!
Thank you
“That’s unionism for you (Fred)”
Nationalism, Unionism, two sides of the same coin. If you paid attention you would have seen me criticising Unionists.
You really can’t comprehend anything but your “us and them” mindset can you?
@ Dreoilin
you’re right, Ireland just didn’t come to mind. But you musn’t assume that I live next door 🙂
Craig,
Glad your back.
Rupert Murdoch…
http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5047/rupert-murdoch-i-feel-hurt-by-leak-of-my-private-comments#.UePrjlfbFIU.twitter
We’ve had this monarchy-versus republic discussion here on a number of occasions, actually, when the poster-formerly-known-as-Alfred [cue puff of sulphurous coriander emanation from the genocidal Indians of Leicester!], and others, put forward the various well-trodden, and somewhat valid, arguments for a constitutional monarchy.
Personally, I’d like Britain a republic (there are a number of workable models) and have no aristocracy. But Britain’s problems run far deeper than that and just getting rid of the Crown and titles, on its own, would not alter these basic problems.
So, either abolish the monarchy… or make me a Duke! Give me a pair of white rhinestone boots, a white cowboy hat and a louche swagger and I’m sorted. There are far too many damn barons and baronesses running around with their coronets bouncing off their heads, Alice Through the Looking Glass-style, as it is.
“But you musn’t assume that I live next door.” Habbabkuk
Habbabkuk, you’re not the boy next door? Aw, how disappointing. I’d always imagined you as a Bay City Roller.
Habby
The British Constitution includes the Monarchy, does it not, so how can you conclude that we’ve moved away from the Monarchy?
I’m tempted just to refer you directly to Lord Hailsham’s excellent work on the subject of our “elective dictatorship”, and he knew a bit about this stuff, inside and outside and from a Tory perspective.
But, I’ll give you a few pointers:
British constitution enshrines in practice the unity of executive and legislature. They are one and the same, much much more often than not.
This worked better when the party system was less rigid. Now it’s an abomination.
Best practice is separation of executive and legislature, as was recognized in the emergence of Parliament itself and indeed even in the hodge podge cobbled together version where, in its stead, there’s now a pretence at separation of powers between monarch and parliament, the Queen appointing ministers and the other pretences in prerogative powers.
The Queen isn’t the executive. None of the Privy Council committees, including the Cabinet are hers to control.
These are factual distinctions.
So, in Blair’s time, he controlled both parliament AND executive, running his own show pretty much as he liked. That’s the elective dictatorship.
The question then becomes, do you want to retain this elective dictatorship or do you want a separation of powers between executive and legislature. Checks and balances, if you will.
I should say, for clarity, that the hodge podge reference to British Constitution is not a reference to change through precedent etc but rather to the manner of its inception in the turbulence following civil war and Protestant Reformation.
If anyone wants to watch an interesting take on Judaism/Being Jewish/Israel and related items, then feel free to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/zionget?feature=watch
Good on you, Craig, and well done for avoiding the Liverpool Care Pathway.
I note that the Murrayista misery-mongers are out in force today, moaning about feudalism and the downtrodden people of Cornwall, of all things. Still, at least it makes a change from Israel!
A suggestion for the Miserables: get yourself down to Kernow while the fine weather lasts, and enjoy the serf!
Life is grand!
“I note that the Murrayista misery-mongers are out in force today, moaning…” Anon.
Is this mammary alliteration ‘after Margaret Thatcher’, as in “moaning minnies”?
And what of The Bay City Rollers, prithee?
@ Dad! All over the place, again.
Apologies for the disgraceful ad hominem (7 23pm). I really have no idea how many of you there are.
Re monarchy, you might as well argue for the desirability of intestinal worms.
On value-for-money grounds alone the UK monarchy seems to be a no-brainer.
The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).
That much would pay for 9,560 nurses.
The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.
How could anybody seriously want that?
Loads more data at: http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf
Saoirse, comhionannas, bráithreachas!
More like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Suhayl
More mammaries will be necessary to suckle the throngs.
“9,560 nurses…”
Or 10,000 very small nurses.
Here’s to the republic!
But jngs ma boab! Alex Salmond still wants the Queen! Actually, one suspects he simply doesn’t want to frighten some people away from voting, ‘Yes’ to independence.
Give Alex a cowboy hat and rhinestone boots, I say!
You know what Kig Farouk said, don’t you?
@ Herbie
“The British Constitution includes the Monarchy, does it not, so how can you conclude that we’ve moved away from the Monarchy?”
_________
It does indeed, and I concluded that you had moved away from the Monarchy to the “Constitution writ large, ie the political system applicable in the UK” (the words I used)because you declined to answer a few key questions regarding how you thought a President should be elected, choosing instead to start talking about the UK constitution and issues such as the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature.
Your references to Lord Hailsham reinforce the idea that you have enlarged the discussion in that his “The Dilemma of Democracy” – which I happen to possess (but thanks for the “pointers, anyway 🙂 )is almost entirely about Parliament and says little about the Monarchy.
Anyway : now that you’ve given us your “pointers”, would you care to advance a little on the question(s) I put to you on your new theme? You’ll find them in my post at 19h35 under point 1/.
(Please don’t confine yourself to just saying something like “a better separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of govt.” but give us your ideas on how you think this – and other improvements- could be achieved in your opinion.).
Thank you.