UK Politics - Taking the Land Rover to Heaven

[Fez]

15 minutes ago, felice said:

Technically yes, but it being someone other than the head of government is largely a vestigial holdover from pre-democratic times.

Why not just announce it to the media? Having a person to carry out a purely symbolic "acceptance" is hardly vital. Or if you really want to keep the ritual, have a lottery to select a random person to accept on behalf of the people, or have parliament employ someone for the purpose.

Sounds like a role for an ambassador, if the PM is too busy to attend themselves.

Yeah, having both with actual power seems like a really bad idea to me. And I'm not keen on directly electing the head either, as in presidential systems.

1. It may be a holdover originally, but at this point it seems fully incorporated into modern democratic systems.

 2. Sure, you could do something else; in particular the lottery idea. But you do need something that officially marks a change in government, more than just a press conference. That way there is an ironclad legal understanding that something happened and it can't be challenged. Symbols and ceremony are important to people.

3. No, that wouldn't work; because what happens if there's a visiting head of state? International diplomatic protocols are both that heads of state receive each other, and that in order of precedence heads of state come before other people. If a foreign head of state came over, and the PM skipped out on stuff because they're busy, it'd be a media circus in the foreign country. I'm sure the PM would always make somme time for a major power's head of state, but it's good to have a figurehead that they can fob off some of the responsibilities to.

4. Yeah, that makes sense. I only brought it up because if someone was elected who still theoretically had the powers that the British Monarch theoretically has, it might cause some serious issues; since, by being elected, they would have a claim to legitimately using them. So if the UK did want to switch to an elected head of state, they'd need to carefully go through an awful lot of previous Acts of Parliament and make sure they're appropriately updated so that there's no constitutional crises.

[mormont]

It's at this point that I usually point out that, in the UK system, in effect the Prime Minister is the Head of State, since almost all the powers the Crown theoretically has are exercised on their behalf by the PM and various conventions and political considerations prevent the Queen from actually using any of the rest, so they are moot.

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

What exactly is your position? Are you hoping for an end to the monarchy, or are you okay with it existing but believe it won't survive Charles as king?

I’m not especially bothered, but I do feel the monarchy do perform a useful function for the country, certainly most non brits I know are more obsessed with the royals than actual brits

I think Liz has basically held the monarchy together over her lifetime and remained hugely popular, which has allowed them to basically escape the big questions of their existence. Put Charles in and suddenly those questions come to the fore. The man has a lot of baggage to deal with. William however is a clean slate, and with Kate would probably help promote the royals image far better. 
 

Those ‘don’t knows’ haven’t really had to consider the royals in their life time, but if those questions come up and it’s ‘do you think Charles should go on being King’ then I think they’ll start coming out with the negative.

[Maltaran]

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's at this point that I usually point out that, in the UK system, in effect the Prime Minister is the Head of State, since almost all the powers the Crown theoretically has are exercised on their behalf by the PM and various conventions and political considerations prevent the Queen from actually using any of the rest, so they are moot.

That’s true for most countries with Parliamentary systems whether they’re monarchies or republics.

[DaveSumm]

6 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Those ‘don’t knows’ haven’t really had to consider the royals in their life time, but if those questions come up and it’s ‘do you think Charles should go on being King’ then I think they’ll start coming out with the negative.

Maybe, but then they’ll realise there’s shit all they can ultimately do about it and go back to ignoring them. Charles doesn’t strike me as someone who would push something controversial if it jeopardised the Royals existence, he’s had a few controversial pet projects over the years but I think he’s capable of listening to reason. Plus, based on their genetics, he’ll be 116 when he finally gets crowned and probably won’t be fucked to do anything.

[Fragile Bird]

The head of state in Canada is the Queen, and she’s represented here by the Governor-General. You surprise me when you say the head of state in the UK is the PM.

[Spockydog]

24 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The head of state in Canada is the Queen

How does Canada feel about that?

[Poobah]

36 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

The head of state in Canada is the Queen, and she’s represented here by the Governor-General. You surprise me when you say the head of state in the UK is the PM.

Pretty sure that here the Queen is the actual official head of state regardless of what the republicans in this thread might want.

[Impmk2]

I might be misreading but I think the original point was that while the queen is the official head of state, she's really just a figurehead / rubber stamp now, and so for all practical purposes the PM might as well be. No one was saying that the PM is officially the head of state.

[Maltaran]

9 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

The head of state in Canada is the Queen, and she’s represented here by the Governor-General. You surprise me when you say the head of state in the UK is the PM.

No, the PM is head of government 

[felice]

10 hours ago, Fez said:

1. It may be a holdover originally, but at this point it seems fully incorporated into modern democratic systems.

Originally it was monarchs exerting absolute power by "divine right". It hasn't become more incorporated over time, it just hasn't entirely gone away yet.

10 hours ago, Fez said:

 2. Sure, you could do something else; in particular the lottery idea. But you do need something that officially marks a change in government, more than just a press conference. That way there is an ironclad legal understanding that something happened and it can't be challenged. Symbols and ceremony are important to people.

Governments do official legally ironclad stuff all the time; there's nothing different about this specific thing. By all means have ceremony and symbolism if it's what people want, but that doesn't require pretending there's some higher authority to give approval.

10 hours ago, Fez said:

3. No, that wouldn't work; because what happens if there's a visiting head of state? International diplomatic protocols are both that heads of state receive each other, and that in order of precedence heads of state come before other people. If a foreign head of state came over, and the PM skipped out on stuff because they're busy, it'd be a media circus in the foreign country. I'm sure the PM would always make somme time for a major power's head of state, but it's good to have a figurehead that they can fob off some of the responsibilities to.

Foreign heads of state don't tend to pop over for unannounced visits, and they're fully aware that they're being fobbed off with a figurehead now. HoS presidents seem to manage somehow. I really don't think this is an insurmountable barrier.

10 hours ago, Fez said:

4. Yeah, that makes sense. I only brought it up because if someone was elected who still theoretically had the powers that the British Monarch theoretically has, it might cause some serious issues; since, by being elected, they would have a claim to legitimately using them.

Indeed.

[Proudfeet]

Don't quite understand this notion of fobbing off. Surely they all make appointments well in advance and whatever PR exercises that involve the figureheads of states are also communicated beforehand?

[Spockydog]

I see Boris Johnson is going to hold a public whitewash inquiry into David Cameron's sleazy, yet ultimately unsuccessful, attempts to snarfle some public money for his chums and paymasters at Greensill.

It's a shame we're probably never going to get a public inquiry into the Great Covid Chumocracy, where literally hundreds of millions of pounds of public money went missing and remains unaccounted for.

 

[Spockydog]

So it's looking like any major sporting events due to clash with The Funeral are to be rescheduled.

Meanwhile, let's make a bunch of websites unreadable, as a mark of respect.

This country is a fucking joke.

[Spockydog]

Jacob Rees Mogg has just announced a national curfew on April 17th. An urgent law is also being passed today that will allow government goons to enter our homes and attach devices to our eyes to keep them open, forcing us to watch images from the bowels of Windsor Castle as Philip's botched reanimation attempt unleashes Ba'al and all his pesky minions upon the world.

[Werthead]

On 4/11/2021 at 2:42 PM, Spockydog said:

Also, it is a well known fact that when couples have been together for such a long period of time, the widow/widower rarely lasts long after their partner has passed.

Both my grandmothers predeceased my grandfathers and both my grandfathers lived for more than a decade afterwards.

The Queen is also pretty indefatigable. Whilst it's certainly not impossible this could have an impact (plus she's 94, when getting very mild illnesses or injuries can be an issue), it's far from a given. She could just as easily live as long as her mother if not longer, and her mother survived her father by fifty years.

The Queen living to 149 is less likely, although it would be amusing just for the impact on Charles. She should also consider the benefits of cryofreeze, with her head wheeled out once a year to deliver a pre-recorded Queen's Speech in perpetuity and stare unblinkingly at the PM once per week.

[Spockydog]

4 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Both my grandmothers predeceased my grandfathers and both my grandfathers lived for more than a decade afterwards.

The Queen is also pretty indefatigable. Whilst it's certainly not impossible this could have an impact (plus she's 94, when getting very mild illnesses or injuries can be an issue), it's far from a given. She could just as easily live as long as her mother if not longer, and her mother survived her father by fifty years.

My Mum's mum died a month after my grandad. My dad's dad six months after my nan. So....

[Heartofice]

I think if the Crown is anything to go by the Queen is more than comfortable having time alone. 

[Spockydog]

Professional racist and snowflake, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is seeking asylum in the US.

The irony here is off the fucking charts.

#FakeRefugeesSendThemBack

 

[Spockydog]

24 minutes ago, Werthead said:

The Queen living to 149 is less likely, although it would be amusing just for the impact on Charles. She should also consider the benefits of cryofreeze, with her head wheeled out once a year to deliver a pre-recorded Queen's Speech in perpetuity and stare unblinkingly at the PM once per week.