This is the News!

[JayzusB.Christ]

I don't know what republicans expect to get from having an elected president, but given the public's track record of electing prime ministers during my lifetime, I would much prefer the system we currently have.

You'd still have those prime ministers even without the monarch, surely?

[Funt Solo]

If only we had some sort of thread dedicated to politics in which to discuss such topics... :-|

Anyone's free to start a new thread focused more specifically on politics. Or even start up an entirely new forum dedicated to such.

---

Back on topic, though: I'm no expert on forms of government, but I'm pretty sure you can keep a prime minister without keeping a monarchy. I mean - it's just a bunch of humans - we can do whatever we want, theoretically.

I've always been swayed by the pub argument that the monarchy of the UK is somehow a net benefit due to tourism, but I've no idea if that's actually true. It is distasteful that Prince Andrew gets off the hook for going to court for an insidious crime because he can afford to be bailed out by money that probably started its life as taxes. And, instead of, I don't know, becoming a monk or something, or keeping a low profile, he still enjoys many of the benefits of being a member of the landed gentry. Or: rich man gets away with it.

[Jim_Campbell]

Back on topic, though: I'm no expert on forms of government, but I'm pretty sure you can keep a prime minister without keeping a monarchy.

The amusing flip side of this is some of the vox pops that the news media has been doing over the last couple of days with people expressing their views on why Charles shouldn't be the next monarch. I fear these people may have drastically misunderstood how the monarchy works — folks, you don't get a vote... this is the MONARCHY.

[The Mind of Wolfie Smith]

the uk public don't have any "track record" of voting for prime ministers, as the winners of a parliamentary majority only ever have a clear minority of the vote.

not many flags in my neck of the wood (though the few patriotic houses have made up for this by going completely over the top).

[Richard]

You'd still have those prime ministers even without the monarch, surely?

I meant that if people vote for shitty candidates for PM, then they will also vote for shitty candidates for president. I assume we would be like Ireland and have a prime minister and a president. But we'd end up with Boris and Nigel.

The Mind of Wolfie Smith is right of course. But if we had first last the post for presidential elections, we would  still have presidents elected by 30% of the voters, who would usually be Tories.

[The Legendary Shark]

If played backwards, and this holds true for every year since nineteen and sixty one, the Queen's Christmas Speech comes out as complete gibberish, although the word "Dracula" can clearly be heard in the 1972 recording it occurs inside a longer stream of gobbledygook and is thought by expert backwardologists to be a complete fluke. Fact.*




*This is not a fact.

[JayzusB.Christ]

You'd still have those prime ministers even without the monarch, surely?

I meant that if people vote for shitty candidates for PM, then they will also vote for shitty candidates for president. I assume we would be like Ireland and have a prime minister and a president. But we'd end up with Boris and Nigel.

The Mind of Wolfie Smith is right of course. But if we had first last the post for presidential elections, we would  still have presidents elected by 30% of the voters, who would usually be Tories.

I see what you mean. On the other hand, nobody at all votes the monarch. As I said, Liz seems a fairly decent skin, but if it were Andrew, you'd have Andrew as a ruler and there'd be sweet feck all anyone could do about it until he died.

[The Legendary Shark]

Presidents don't need to have political power. They can be symbolic heads of state, employed to represent the republic on the world stage and at home, with the right and responsibility to praise or criticise any and all aspects of the republic. That could be King Charlie, Stephen Fry, or anybody else the people decide to elect to the position.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Presidents don't need to have political power. They can be symbolic heads of state, employed to represent the republic on the world stage and at home, with the right and responsibility to praise or criticise any and all aspects of the republic. That could be King Charlie, Stephen Fry, or anybody else the people decide to elect to the position.

That's the way it's done here - thankfully our president is a decent, scholarly type that most people like.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Presidents don't need to have political power. They can be symbolic heads of state, employed to represent the republic on the world stage and at home, with the right and responsibility to praise or criticise any and all aspects of the republic. That could be King Charlie, Stephen Fry, or anybody else the people decide to elect to the position.

That's the way it's done here - thankfully our president is a decent, scholarly type that most people like.

Higgins is a puppet. Bród agus Misneach are pulling his strings

[JayzusB.Christ]

Presidents don't need to have political power. They can be symbolic heads of state, employed to represent the republic on the world stage and at home, with the right and responsibility to praise or criticise any and all aspects of the republic. That could be King Charlie, Stephen Fry, or anybody else the people decide to elect to the position.

That's the way it's done here - thankfully our president is a decent, scholarly type that most people like.

Higgins is a puppet. Bród agus Misneach are pulling his strings

That would explain the lack of height.

[Richard]

If the head of state has no political power, does it matter if they are elected or not?

If the president has no power, won't election turnouts be low, since most voters will conclude that it doesn't really matter who wins?

Jayzus makes a fair point about King Andrew. We could introduce impeachment for the monarch.

[The Legendary Shark]

It depends on what a republic requires its president to do, or if it wants or needs one, what the republic itself stands for and the form it will take. There are many choices available.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Afaik presidential elections here do tend to have a low turnout.  I suppose for me, though, it's a question of principle rather than the character of the ruler involved - if someone is going to rule me, even symbolically, I'd prefer they were normal people chosen by other normal people , rather than some kind of suppsedly superior caste member chosen by God or whatever before they're even born.

But that's just me - obviously growing up in a republic is going to bias my view a bit.

[IndigoPrime]

If the president has no power, won't election turnouts be low, since most voters will conclude that it doesn't really matter who wins?

Not necessarily. In 2020, 67% of Icelanders rocked up to vote for their president, to support the incumbent historian over a wanker challenger. The actual turnout was only fractionally lower than the UK's previous general election.