The Coronation of Christian King Charles III

[Mock Turtle]

Progress? I don't think progress is affected by what kind of head of state we have, but by our government. Brexit, for instance, has done far more to inhibit our chances of a prosperous and relevant future than anything to do with the monarchy. We spend a lot of time, quite rightly, in our politics arguing about how to achieve progress as a nation. The monarchy simply does not come up, at all, in such discussions. It's just not relevant.

I've never been interested in the monarchy per se or been a great supporter of it, but the longer I live, the more I feel that history and tradition are actually important to the cultural life and identity of the country. The monarchy may gradually evaporate over time, or it may not. Chaz will slim it down and then we'll see whether the people turn against it or continue to indulge it.

To me it is just an irrelevance and mostly still around because it attracts visitors to the UK, allows people to fawn over others, and people like the connection to our history - even if this has as much bad as good in it.

 

[Augustus]

By far the most undemocratic part of our system is the 'first past the post' voting system for Parliament,

I always find the desire to label FPtP "undemocratic" a bit specious.

There are advantages and disadvantages of any electoral system, the idea that only one's preferred system deserves the right to be called democratic seems myopic to me. Not only because democracy is far more than voting system, but that any system can be labeled more or less "democratic" or "undemocratic" when you look at it from different perspectives.

There are certainly many ways in which PR is preferable (as there are many ways in which it introduces new problems), but it's better to discuss these rationally and weigh up pros and cons rather than rush to label things "democratic" or "undemocratic" based on personal preferences.

(FWIW, I would vote for PR if offered a choice)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but in a democracy people tend to get to vote on such - so perhaps why democracies are so popular - whereas monarchies have not been such enforcers of such things. I know there are many benefits from having a monarchy, especially a titular one, but progress often comes from breaking with the past. Notice what was shouted so heartedly during the event - God Save the King! When the UK is becoming less religious than ever.

Yeah, I feel differently.

 

[exchemist]

To me it is just an irrelevance and mostly still around because it attracts visitors to the UK, allows people to fawn over others, and people like the connection to our history - even if this has as much bad as good in it.

That's fair enough. In fact that's what I think a lot of the time, too. But I'm against throwing stuff out, just for the sake of it and I am suspicious of Whiggish notions of progress.

 

[Augustus]

I know that our monarchy has little role in any governance - so why have it?

Apolitical heads of state are better in a parliamentary system (imo)
Can be used to woo foreign dignitaries
Can do diplomacy better than President Jeremy Hunt
Good for publicity/marketing
Tradition helps bind groups of people together
Avoids pointless elections every 5 years
Avoids people whining about who we elected ad nauseam
Avoids people whining about election coverage every 5 years
Avoids us wasting lots of time and passing the relevant legislation to become a republic
(Personally) I like the PM to have to feel inferior to someone quite regularly and having a powerless monarch does this quite well, a president would not do this at all.
etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's fair enough. In fact that's what I think a lot of the time, too. But I'm against throwing stuff out, just for the sake of it and I am suspicious of Whiggish notions of progress.

Well, in effect in some sense I am small c conservative, though in UK I would vote Labour.

 

[exchemist]

Well, in effect in some sense I am small c conservative, though in UK I would vote Labour.

I am just the same. In fact I have often voted Conservative in the course of my life, but not now that they have become a party of mad Little England Nationalists, climate change deniers and xenophobes. I intend to vote Labour for the foreseeable future.

 

[ratiocinator]

I always find the desire to label FPtP "undemocratic" a bit specious.

I think the fact that a party can get an unassailable majority from a (sometimes relatively small) minority of the vote is enough to regard it as fundamentally undemocratic and unfair. That's before we get to the idea that it actually discriminates against parties that have broad support across the country and rewards those whose support is geographically concentrated (which often corresponds with wealth and class).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know that our monarchy has little role in any governance - so why have it? Politics has been and always will be the last in my line of interests, so all here is just my opinion but seemingly coming from some logic. I don't know what might replace our monarchy - perhaps some council of eminent and politically neutral scholars to appoint a head of government, and where such at least might provide a certain competence in the role - but there are still plenty of issues as to how any government gets voted in anyway.

For Canada and other Commonwealth Realms with similar structures, getting fid of the monarchy would be simple.

Right now, we have a Governor-General who is selected by the Prime Minister (for a fixed term) and confirmed by the monarch. The Governor-General wields all royal power on behalf of the monarch whenever the monarch is absent (which amounts to "effectively always" for a former colony).

All we would need to do to switch to a "republican" form of government is to change it so that the PM has the de jure power to select the Governor-General instead of just the de facto power they have now. That's it.

For the UK, a compromise you could implement right away, by implementing something that Canada has right now: get rid of the royal family.

I mean, the people themselves would still exist, but under Canadian law - and potentially under UK law, if there was the will for it - only the monarch has official recognition from the state. The line of succession is just an administrative list to be consulted in the event of the death of the monarch; people on it don't get any special powers or privileges.

It's certainly short of creating a republic, but getting rid of a big chunk of the cronyism attached to the monarchy now, so it would be a positive move, IMO.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am just the same. In fact I have often voted Conservative in the course of my life, but not now that they have become a party of mad Little England Nationalists, climate change deniers and xenophobes. I intend to vote Labour for the foreseeable future.

Remember to vote tactically depending on your "district". I don't know where you live, you might have to vote LibDem or some local version if you are outside England. In the really rare case, it would be Green. But only if you want to vote non-Conservative.

 

[PruePhillip]

The opposite, actually.

Heads of state that were selected for diplomatic skill would havd had a chance at averting war. Inbred playboys with no diplomatic expertise did not.



Had Russia had a competent monarchy, it would have kept its monarchy beyond 1917... but like most monarchies, competence was not considered in the selection of the Russian monarch.

Re Russia. Would you prefer a nation run by an "incompetent" monarch or a highly competent and ruthless Bolshevik/Communist state? What incompetent monarch HAS THE POWER controlled by Communists? In an old fashioned kingdom you had the power shared by the church, merchants, nobility, army and the peasants. In a Communist system this is controlled by The Party who is controlled by the Dear Leader. ABSOLUTE AND PERMANENT INCOMPETENCE.

 

[Zwing]

We still have to move on though and hopefully provide a better future for coming generations. And I doubt this will come from hereditary nonsense and such baggage from history.

I personally consider identity, particularly as it helps to differentiate us from others, to be of paramount importance in human life. I think, rather, that this provided the major impetus for Brexit. I also believe in symbols and their power to confirm identity. Britain has only three symbols worth anything at all, the monarchy, the anthem, and the beautiful British flag (the most distinctively beautiful, IMO), by which British identity and pride are confirmed. Do you really want to get rid of two of these (if the monarchy goes, so does the anthem) so that more fat, useless people can get free ambulance rides to the hospital for imagined complaints? And as I say, the monarchy serves another purpose: as a reminder to the bureaucratic state that it represents not the only form of governance.

 

[Augustus]

I think the fact that a party can get an unassailable majority from a (sometimes relatively small) minority of the vote is enough to regard it as fundamentally undemocratic and unfair. That's before we get to the idea that it actually discriminates against parties that have broad support across the country and rewards those whose support is geographically concentrated (which often corresponds with wealth and class).

In PR when a party gets 10% of the vote (perhaps a far right/far left party) and is able to extract very big concessions by leveraging this, would you say that is "democratic"? Or endless coalition backroom horse-trading? Is it more democratic to give even more power to the major cities, and especially London and the South-east? Give Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland less of a voice? Give even more power to older voters who turn out in higher numbers?

I wouldn't describe those as being definitively "fairer" or "more democratic".

As an aside, not saying this applies to you necessarily, it seems to me that there is a significant correlation between those who find FPtP "undemocratic" and those who found Britain voting for Brexit "undemocratic". Democracy seems to be defined as "that which is most likely to produce my favoured outcome".

 

[ratiocinator]

I personally consider identity, particularly as it helps to differentiate us from others...

So you think it a good idea to promote an 'us and them' attitude to the world?

I think, rather, that this provided the major impetus for Brexit.

That, in itself, makes makes it questionable. Brexit was an absurd act of national self-harm orchestrated by those with selfish political ambition, and dimwitted 'little Englanders' nostalgic for a non-existent golden era in the past, none of whom even had a proper plan, and sold to the public with empty slogans and barefaced lies.

Britain has only two symbols worth anything at all, the monarchy and the beautiful British flag (the most distinctively beautiful, IMO), by which British identity and pride are confirmed.

I despise the first and regard the second a mundane in the extreme. Patriotism and nationalism are but a short walk from racism and xenophobia.

Do you really want to get rid of one of these so that more fat, useless people can get free ambulance rides to the hospital for imagined complaints?

Seem to have gone off on a bizarre tangent here. However, I value the NHS and it being free at the point of use, to be far more valuable than the monarchy or the flag. Most things are, come to think of it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you think it a good idea to promote an 'us and them' attitude to the world?


That, in itself, makes makes it questionable. Brexit was an absurd act of national self-harm orchestrated by those with selfish political ambition, and dimwitted 'little Englanders' nostalgic for a non-existent golden era in the past, none of whom even had a proper plan, and sold to the public with empty slogans and barefaced lies.


I despise the first and regard the second a mundane in the extreme. Patriotism and nationalism are but a short walk from racism and xenophobia.


Seem to have gone off on a bizarre tangent here. However, I value the NHS and it being free at the point of use, to be far more valuable than the monarchy or the flag. Most things are, come to think of it.

But you are still using emotions just like Zwing. I do it too, so we are all the same there. We just have different emotions. But in this case, I agree more with you than I disagree. Go figure.

 

[Zwing]

So you think it a good idea to promote an 'us and them' attitude to the world?

Yes. As I say, I am inherently somewhat tribalistic, and value my pride in contrast to other people. Differentiation by means of identity provides a pretext for pride.

That, in itself, makes makes it questionable. Brexit was an absurd act of national self-harm orchestrated by those with selfish political ambition, and dimwitted 'little Englanders' nostalgic for a non-existent golden era in the past, none of whom even had a proper plan, and sold to the public with empty slogans and barefaced lies.

Yes, it was harmful. I do not intend to suggest otherwise. I merely mentioned it in response to your own mention.

…even if this would be better for the UK - just as getting rid of guns would be for America.

I disagree in both instances. Modify the monarchy, don’t abolish it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Re Russia. Would you prefer a nation run by an "incompetent" monarch or a highly competent and ruthless Bolshevik/Communist state? What incompetent monarch HAS THE POWER controlled by Communists? In an old fashioned kingdom you had the power shared by the church, merchants, nobility, army and the peasants. In a Communist system this is controlled by The Party who is controlled by the Dear Leader. ABSOLUTE AND PERMANENT INCOMPETENCE.

Not mutually exclusive options. Russia ended up Communist because of incompetent monarchs.

Part of the problem was Nicholas's inability to handle crises, but this was exacerbated by Germany sneaking Lenin back into Russia to cause a bit of chaos behind the lines, which was an action of WWI (which, as I've already touched on, might not have happened if experienced, capable diplomats had been at the helm of their countries instead of inbred playboys who were hit-and-miss in the skills department).

 

[exchemist]

Remember to vote tactically depending on your "district". I don't know where you live, you might have to vote LibDem or some local version if you are outside England. In the really rare case, it would be Green. But only if you want to vote non-Conservative.

Haha, I'm in Battersea which is a Lab/Con fight. It will go Labour next time - and I'll be helping it on its way .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To me it is just an irrelevance and mostly still around because it attracts visitors to the UK, allows people to fawn over others, and people like the connection to our history - even if this has as much bad as good in it.

How many visitors does the royal family actually attract, though?

I mean, I get that we can see visitor totals for Buckingham Palace or wherever, but how many of them came to the UK because of the monarchy and how many of them would have come to the UK anyhow and would have happily gone to the British Museum, the London Eye, or done a Thames sightseeing cruise instead if the Palace hadn't been open?

The Palace wasn't even open to tourists until after the 1992 fire (my quick Googling says the restoration took 5 years, so I'm assuming that it opened to the public in 1997, but I can't confirm). Did this cause a bump in tourism for the nation as a whole?

Is there any other measurable data that says, "yes, more people visit the UK because it has an active monarchy?"

I think I know a grand total of 3 people who would ever want to do a "royal pilgrimage" to the UK, which is a fraction of the number I know who would want to do a distillery tour of Scotland, and nowhere near how many would want to go for a big stage show in London or Edinborough Fringe.

Like, from where I sit, it seems like getting rid of the monarchy would have about the same impact on British tourism as the closure of the Port Ellen Distillery did... if the net effect is even negative at all.

 

[exchemist]

I always find the desire to label FPtP "undemocratic" a bit specious.

There are advantages and disadvantages of any electoral system, the idea that only one's preferred system deserves the right to be called democratic seems myopic to me. Not only because democracy is far more than voting system, but that any system can be labeled more or less "democratic" or "undemocratic" when you look at it from different perspectives.

There are certainly many ways in which PR is preferable (as there are many ways in which it introduces new problems), but it's better to discuss these rationally and weigh up pros and cons rather than rush to label things "democratic" or "undemocratic" based on personal preferences.

(FWIW, I would vote for PR if offered a choice)

In my opinion the worst distortion by far of the UK political system is the way that party leaders, who are de facto prime ministerial candidates, are chosen by an unelected body of activists, many with extreme and unrepresentative views. This is how we have ended up with such rank absurdities as Corbyn, Dumcnut-Smith, Bozo and Truss as party leaders. I think we should go back having them chosen by elected representatives of the people, viz. the parliamentary parties. MPs are far more in touch with what the people will vote for than a self-selecting bunch of activists who get the right to vote for leader based on paying a membership fee and nothing more.

But on balance I would also like to see PR. I think coalitions would probably govern us moderately and well, with less room for the type of ideological mania we have suffered from in recent years.