I used to be anti-monarchy when I was in college I'm kind of neutral now. I suppose I lean slightly to keeping the monarchy for a few reasons (the reasons for getting rid are well known so I won't recount them, but I understand and agree with them). However my reasons are as follows:
1. It's pretty much worked these last 70 years. Political neutrality is absolutely key.
2. The Queen very rarely had any meaningful input on policy. She wasn't perfect but her record is better than the overwhelming vast majority of elected politicians. I think even the King has a higher approval rating than most elected politicians around the world (Moggy to debunk?), and that's a miracle given its Charles.
3. I kind of like the tradition. We kind of set our measurement scale of history on who was on the throne etc.
It's not the strongest of reasons, hence why I'd consider myself neutral.
I think that to be convinced a change was good, I'd like to see what an elected head of state could actually improve, and if they should be politically powerful. It wouldn't be all happy days like republicans think. The likelihood is, we would end up with a President Blair or worse, a President Johnson. That alone would make me really reluctant to want to abolish the monarchy.
You have to think about who the people are who are likely to get elected. It won't be Jess Phillips or Dennis Skinner. It's going to be a Blair, Johnson, Mogg or any number of wealthy undesirables that won't be politically neutral (publicly).
I don't buy any of the soft power nonsense monarchists spout. It doesn't exist. But there is a bit of a unique lure with having a monarch on the throne. It shouldn't work, but somehow it has managed it. A neutral monarch can probably be useful on the lame scale, such as a way to cool relations with Europe after we strawberry floated everything up with Brexit.
I do feel Charles or William will be the last monarch. I think inevitably it will end. I just hope I'm not around to see whoever becomes president because it won't be anyone good. I think I'd just rather have a powerless head of state who keeps their mouth shut and tries to keep their nose clean. Charles as Prince was strawberry floating crap but he's been pretty quiet since he ascended. I support his idea of slimming the monarchy. Only the direct heir and their kids should have titles at the very most.
I think an elected head of state would be inevitably right wing and try to exert any power they can and try to court publicity for re-election. I think I'd rather have a monarch who has to try and keep quiet and largely out of scandal to prevent their house of cards from collapsing.
captain red dog wrote:You have to think about who the people are who are likely to get elected. It won't be Jess Phillips or Dennis Skinner. It's going to be a Blair, Johnson, Mogg or any number of wealthy undesirables that won't be politically neutral (publicly).
captain red dog wrote:You have to think about who the people are who are likely to get elected. It won't be Jess Phillips or Dennis Skinner. It's going to be a Blair, Johnson, Mogg or any number of wealthy undesirables that won't be politically neutral (publicly).
captain red dog wrote:The likelihood is, we would end up with a President Blair or worse, a President Johnson. That alone would make me really reluctant to want to abolish the monarchy.
This arguement is always bandied about and is garbage. Equally with royalty we've had terrible Kings and Queens. You could get a King Andrew or infant King George. An elected head of state would be largely ceremonial like in many other countries such as Ireland's
captain red dog wrote:The likelihood is, we would end up with a President Blair or worse, a President Johnson. That alone would make me really reluctant to want to abolish the monarchy.
This arguement is always bandied about and is garbage. Equally with royalty we've had terrible Kings and Queens. You could get a King Andrew or infant King George. An elected head of state would be largely ceremonial like in many other countries such as Ireland's
This. I'd still rather have an elected head of state the public voted for but I didn't, versus a head of state no-one voted for. At least they could be voted out or have a term limit, and once they're gone the job wouldn't be automatically handed to their spawn.