Countess
Every five years or less General Elections are held to fill the seats of the UK House of Commons. Any time that the British public feels they no longer want the Monarchy, I am positive that their freely elected democratic members of Parliament can reflect their wishes.
49% for Charles and 32% for William equals 81% total.
57% is the overwhelming majority in a democracy.
Firstly, we don't vote on the monarchy in a general election. Look at every manifesto and you won't find the monarchy mentioned. Even the Liberal Democrats don't say they'd abolish it. So when we vote at general election, we're actually voting on everything but the monarchy. It might follow that those who vote Labour want to see an end to the hereditary priveledge and if that is the case then the Government would be in a position to introduce reforms to the monarchy at the very least. But I'm afraid that the British public doesn't get elections on demand, the political system works in a way that limits the impact of parties that might bring change on a big scale and I'd say to you that our representatives in the House of Commons are anything but elected democratically. I have to ask where your percentages come from too and how many people voted.
Does anyone really think that the cost for a head of state would go down if that head of state were a President?
The cost for a President could be the same but I can't see it being any higher. The point is, we'd be electing our Head of State rather than being ruled by a family. People seem to assume that a President has to be of the American model where the role is political - the fact is that in the Baltic states especially, Presidents have taken on a ceremonial role but they're elected. Ok so they're elected by the unicameral parliaments but when those bodies are elected by the people through the much preferable system of proportional representation, the peoples of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are benefitting from a much more effective and real form of democracy. Financially, we're led to believe that the monarchy is a good deal. This hinges on whether you believe the 61p figure and whether you accept that we should pay anything when the Queen is a billionairess anyway. According to Brian Hoey, it's her 'personal' fortune that pays for most of the ceremony we see. I doubt that very much and if Sandringham, Balmoral etc etc were all trimmed back to having Buckingham Palace as the Presidental Palace - I think we'd get a much better deal.
Or people who feel entitled to intrude into their private life and seek to become hitler like dictators can learn to mind their own business and live their own life. There are always options available.
The rise of the extreme left or the extreme right is inevitable in this country because it hasn't been allowed to happen before. Now that every political party aims for a centrist manifesto, it makes sense that far right and far left parties are seeing a boost in poll ratings and indeed, if we had a different system I'm sure we'd see many more 'fringe' parties in the House of Commons. I'm not sure whether you're suggesting I wish to become a Hitler-esque dictator but I think that that argument is quite weak considering that Britain is bound not only to the Treaty of Rome but also the Treaty of Maastricht, the Treaty of Nice and of course, the Lisbon Agreement which we've just signed to. Add to that our role in the UN as a leading nation and I think that you'd find it near impossible for a dictator to rise or for Britain to become North Korea or Nazi Germany. An elected Head of State doesn't equal an automatic dictator - rather, it gives Britain the democracy it has been denied for so many years. Even the names of our institutions are intended to keep the working man down - the House of Commons for one. It makes no sense in the 21st century for Britain to keep up the facade just to please tourists.
When tourists go to Buck House and Windsor Castle, the Queen isn't on the door in her housecoat giving a tour. Tourists go to America don't they? Tourists go to Germany too - being a monarchy doesn't attract tourists. And to be frank, it might be jolly dee for the tourists but for those of us who do live in Britain (and that doesn't make my opinion more valid) it's starting to become evident that something is wrong. Take a small example - my taxes upkeep the Crown Estate right? Yet I have to pay £15 to take a wander around the Tower of London. That property should belong to the people who pay for it and British citizens (not subjects) should be entitled to their heritage free of charge. If we had a President, the excess of monarchy would be exposed and I think people would see more tourists as they could actually see the real palaces etc and not just the bits the Queen lowers herself to show us.
The UK is most certainly a democracy. The House of Lords CANNOT block legislation and if the Monarch refused to assent to it and when was the last time that happened, btw, the House of Commons can simply abolish it.
I'm sorry but I find that incorrect. It's inherent in the British legislative system that democracy is denied. Through the use of the First Past the Post system, political parties are able to keep a grip on the electorate because smaller parties that most people would vote for, never get a chance to sit in the Commons. The House of Lords can and does block legislation and especially during the Blair premiership sent back numerous pieces of legislation which it found unacceptable and refused to pass. These are unelected men and women who are directly contradicting and refusing to give passage to, the legislation put together by the elected men and women of the so-called 'lower chamber'. Notice that the Lords were not so difficult during the Thatcher premiership. The monarch may not have refused assent but in reality, the House of Lords is full of people who do that on her behalf. The House of Commons cannot abolish the Lords - have you seen the outcry there was and still is over Lords reform? Ok it's mainly from the Lords themselves but politicians refuse to mention Lords reform for two reasons; one, it's a cushy number for them to retire to and two, it brings into question our entire constitution (you know the one we haven't got and aren't allowed?). Why have a House of Lords? Why have a monarchy? Why is it called the Commons? Britain is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination and it'll take a huge change on a revolutionary scale to make us one.
You say Britain's a democracy, I suppose you know of the coup that was planned by Lord Mountbatten and a gaggle of grey men because they didn't like Harold Wilson tampering with the way things were? It wasn't that he was a dictator or that the monarchy was under threat, they planned a coup because for once, the people might have had a chance for real democracy and that wouldn't have worked financially for them.
The British public OVERWHELMINGLY WANTS the Monarchy because they get something out of it.
Do they? When have they shown they overwhelmingly want it? And what do they get out of it? What do they get from a monarchy that they can't get from a President? The answer = there is nothing the Queen does that can't be done by a President. The political system in this country is geared to keep the establishment firmly in place because it's advantageous for everyone within that establishment to keep the people down and to keep things the way they are. Now if thats the way things are then fine but as someone who pays to upkeep that way, I think I have the right to call for something else.