Very good Tim.
Cedars. Not going to copy your post because it makes them all too long I think.
The majority of people did not take any part in Jubilee celebrations. But really it doesn't matter. Do I think the majority of people in this country currently want the Queen as head of state? Yup. Does that invalidate my argument that we would have better government if she was elected and had some executive powers? No. All I am asking for is choice. I don't understand why her position would be diminished by being elected. If anything it would strengthen it.
I think you are a bit misinformed about the influence of consultation and debate on policy. The labour party were exceptional at that - they 'consulted' about their ideas and guess what? The consultations always agreed with what they were planning. Good stuff chaps.
If it ain't broke don't fix it. To begin with I think the system is broke. Parliament is in no way representative of the population anymore. Just look at the educational and social background of the cabinet for that. The majority of people feel disenfranchised from the political process which is one of the reasons I think people are supportive of the Queen. She doesn't seem to be corrupt and appears a decent human being and has been around forever so at least we can trust her right? I can see that argument.
The problem is the number of people I hear say "I like the Queen but Charles and the rest of them as well as all the hangers on, well...". In a way this encourages me. I think Charles will be as unpopular a King as the Queen is popular. Everyone thinks William is great (not sure on what basis) but what happens when he cheats on Katherine (or she cheats on him, or has a mental breakdown due to the intrusion into her life a la Diana?). You say that the public will take to the streets if this happens? I think not. There will just be grumbling and the respect they enjoy will diminish, although I think a sizeable minority would support them if they were just plain nasty. We shouldn't need people taking to the streets to change things. We live in a democracy. The ballot box will do.
Even if the system is not broke, there is no reason why it cannot be improved. Lords reform is interesting. The commons will never vote for an elected house of lords because they no that with a democratic mandate they will want more power than they currently have. I think this example shows shows self preservation in action rather than a system that works well.
If the election was a referendum on who wants a strong and stable democracy I would agree it would be a waste of time. But you know that is not what I am suggesting. We could have no queen and have the prime minister as head of state and we could still have a strong and stable democracy. My point is that we don't have a strong democracy. We have a system where a party that gets one third of the vote where only 65% of the people feel sufficiently engaged to even bother voting can enjoy such a large majority in the commons that they can push through pretty much any policy they wish and claim they have a democratic mandate to do so. Am I naive enough to think electing the head of state would change this? No, but a system that shares executive power between different elected government branches would work better. And yes I do think the system in America is substantially better than ours. Just because I don't agree with some of the things they choose is irrelevant.
I did not insult the royal family, but even if I did I would not apologise for it. The comments Philip has made about chinese people for example would result in any diplomat being fired. Charles is becoming incredibly political and using his position not just to make his views heard but alter policy. It is expressly not his place to do so. If he wants to become a commoner then he is welcome to but his position can only be maintained if he stays politically neutral - and not just from a party perspective. This I grant you the Queen has done well. No one knows her views on anything so she has pissed no one off. She has understood the need to be strictly neutral on everything.
My mumbo-jumbo point and being allowed to raise my viewpoing was more aimed at Charliko who just seemed to be going on some daft illogical rant. Misplaced in my post to you who I appreciate has been talking about the issues.
Who supports or doesn't support my views is irrelevant to their validity and you are fully aware of this.
The majority of people want to bring back hanging. So what the majority want is not always best. However, in a democracy you have to accept majority rule. But then democracy is through the ballet box with different sides debating their views before the public decides. It is not mob rule.
