That would be a very divisive policy because those who love the royal family will not vote to elect a government that would put their position in jeopardy. Politicians only state popular policies that sound good to the people.
Committing to something involves actually making a decision. However it is worth noting that pretty much every poll on the subject has come down on the side of keeping the monarchy - in which case what is in it for Milliband.
I'm a republican, but I'm not in favour of single issue parties. Unless it was part of a whole set of reforms to modernise the state I wouldn't be interested.
When was the last time Ed Milliband committed to anything? The guy will say anything if it will help him get votes. Just look at all the things he's promised to do with the "tax on bankers bonuses" He just goes from one bandwagon to the next, making a commitment to do something then abandoning it when something else comes along.
Because he is smart enough to realise that it is not an issue which affects the way most people would vote.
You can look at any number of polls saying that x no of people support a Republic, but to any politician seeking election a more relevant question is, 'What are the top 3 most important issues that affect who you vote for?' Ditching the monarchy never even comes close to being mentioned in the top answers to that. From an electoral point of view it's a classic lose-lose policy, all it can really achieve is to piss people who disagree with you off and it is unlikely in itself to make people change their votes to you.
The truth is that most people don't care either way about the monarchy.
My own opinion is that the money saved from not having a monarchy would never be filtered down to the common man. It will be snaffled up by the trough-feeders in Westminster.
There is also the fact that the idea of either a President Cameron or President Milliband makes me want to vomit.
The truth is that most people don't care either way about the monarchy.
My own opinion is that the money saved from not having a monarchy would never be filtered down to the common man. It will be snaffled up by the trough-feeders in Westminster.
There is also the fact that the idea of either a President Cameron or President Milliband makes me want to vomit.
the main reason to have a monarchy, more than the financial benefits, to me, is that it stops the PM being president.
Imagine president Blair. every week the PM has to go and see the queen and account for himself in his handling of her country. i think this provides the PM with an important sense of perspective.
When was the last time Ed Milliband committed to anything? The guy will say anything if it will help him get votes. Just look at all the things he's promised to do with the "tax on bankers bonuses" He just goes from one bandwagon to the next, making a commitment to do something then abandoning it when something else comes along.
agree.....Ed Milliband blows with the wind on much less issues....i doubt he will make a stand against something he believes in if it will cost him votes.....something Tony Benn never did...whether you agreed with Tony Benn on not he had ideals something todays politician with soundbites and opinion polls sadly lack....
The truth is that most people don't care either way about the monarchy.
My own opinion is that the money saved from not having a monarchy would never be filtered down to the common man. It will be snaffled up by the trough-feeders in Westminster.
There is also the fact that the idea of either a President Cameron or President Milliband makes me want to vomit.
Why would we elect a President Cameron or Miliband? If we went for a model similar to the Irish one, they wouldn't even be interested in going for the job; it would be constitutional. I doubt people here are inherently more incompetent in choosing their Heads of State than the Irish, who have historically chosen well-loved and respected folk. Anyway, I broadly agree with what others have said - the monarchy is indefensible, but there are other 'vote winners' which the politicians will espouse.
No it wouldn't, because you're implying republics may be inherently more progressive than constitutional monarchies, which they aren't.
Getting rid of titles, and the idea that we should bow or curtsey to our head of state and their family instead of electing them democratically, seems pretty progressive.
the main reason to have a monarchy, more than the financial benefits, to me, is that it stops the PM being president.
Imagine president Blair. every week the PM has to go and see the queen and account for himself in his handling of her country. i think this provides the PM with an important sense of perspective.
The British PM has become more presidential in recent decades - e.g. Thatcher and Blair.
At present the PM has powers invested in him by the Head of State, the Queen, such as to declare war without parliamentary approval.
This is undemocratic - an unelected head of state should not have powers to dish out important responsibilities like this.
Why is that? Do you just not like the title "President"?
Though if we followed the Irish model, neither of those choices would be likely. We could have a "ceremonial" President with limited powers.
What is the point of abolishing the monarchy to replace it with a ceremonial President?
My problem is not the term President but the people who would be called it. Neither Cameron or Milliband has had a political thought that hasn't been rigourously focus-tested to banality. Everything they do is with the idea of vote winning not what is best for us.
I would rather have Charles as my king than those snake-oil salesman.
What is the point of abolishing the monarchy to replace it with a ceremonial President?.
A President would be democratically elected instead of being Head of State merely through an accident of birth.
My problem is not the term President but the people who would be called it. Neither Cameron or Milliband has had a political thought that hasn't been rigourously focus-tested to banality. Everything they do is with the idea of vote winning not what is best for us.
Sounds as though you would also object to them being called Prime Minister! Your quarrel seems to be with two particular people, rather than the post they might fill, or be filled by others who you might be OK with.
I would rather have Charles as my king than those snake-oil salesman.
All MPs and Head of State should be chosen every 5 years at random from the electoral roll; one person to represent every 10,000 and political parties should be outlawed.
All MPs and Head of State should be chosen every 5 years at random from the electoral roll; one person to represent every 10,000 and political parties should be outlawed.
You'd never fit all the MPs into Parliament at that rate!
A President would be democratically elected instead of being Head of State merely through an accident of birth.
Sounds as though you would also object to them being called Prime Minister! Your quarrel seems to be with two particular people, rather than the post they might fill, or be filled by others who you might be OK with.
Why? He would have no actual power.
I am not pro-Monarchist. I wouldn't care if they disappeared.
My problem is with what would replace them and especially the caliber of the people who would replace them. You only have to look at the people of the front benches of our political parties to see this.
I worked with a wise, elder, man who called them collaborators who would have been shot during the war. They are more interested in their friends in high places and their future careers than the lives of the common man - a few honourable exceptions apart - and they are not the type of people I would want to be our leaders.
I am not pro-Monarchist. I wouldn't care if they disappeared.
My problem is with what would replace them and especially the caliber of the people who would replace them. You only have to look at the people of the front benches of our political parties to see this.
I worked with a wise, elder, man who called them collaborators who would have been shot during the war. They are more interested in their friends in high places and their future careers than the lives of the common man - a few honourable exceptions apart - and they are not the type of people I would want to be our leaders.
Ireland has had Presidents who were widely respected. It could be a completely non-political post.
All MPs and Head of State should be chosen every 5 years at random from the electoral roll; one person to represent every 10,000 and political parties should be outlawed.
I think the Lords should operate that way.....done similar to the Jury system....but that you can opt in or not......Only a hundred members though to cut down costs.....
MPs there should be a reduced number and representing an equal number of the public each (for the sake of being democratic)....I would say 400 is more than enough.....but i would add to this that the Mps are able to vote into what they see fit without a whip......this again would add to being more democratic.....
The Lords (which would be renamed the Public 100.....couldnt change laws they would just give and indication in what they wanted......but maybe even with most people having access to the internet peoples opinions could be made there with everyone getting a vote on every issues and then its up to parliment if they want to go with the views or not but at least then the pubics view is known.....
Comments
That would be a very divisive policy because those who love the royal family will not vote to elect a government that would put their position in jeopardy. Politicians only state popular policies that sound good to the people.
Committing to something involves actually making a decision. However it is worth noting that pretty much every poll on the subject has come down on the side of keeping the monarchy - in which case what is in it for Milliband.
No it wouldn't, because you're implying republics may be inherently more progressive than constitutional monarchies, which they aren't.
And the result is a foregone conclusion - we would remain a monarchy. And it wouldn't be close
You can look at any number of polls saying that x no of people support a Republic, but to any politician seeking election a more relevant question is, 'What are the top 3 most important issues that affect who you vote for?' Ditching the monarchy never even comes close to being mentioned in the top answers to that. From an electoral point of view it's a classic lose-lose policy, all it can really achieve is to piss people who disagree with you off and it is unlikely in itself to make people change their votes to you.
You don't really have much of a grasp of our history and our Parliamentary system do you?
My own opinion is that the money saved from not having a monarchy would never be filtered down to the common man. It will be snaffled up by the trough-feeders in Westminster.
There is also the fact that the idea of either a President Cameron or President Milliband makes me want to vomit.
the main reason to have a monarchy, more than the financial benefits, to me, is that it stops the PM being president.
Imagine president Blair. every week the PM has to go and see the queen and account for himself in his handling of her country. i think this provides the PM with an important sense of perspective.
when you say progressive. do you just mean that we currently have a monarchy, so not having one would be progressive?
agree.....Ed Milliband blows with the wind on much less issues....i doubt he will make a stand against something he believes in if it will cost him votes.....something Tony Benn never did...whether you agreed with Tony Benn on not he had ideals something todays politician with soundbites and opinion polls sadly lack....
Why would we elect a President Cameron or Miliband? If we went for a model similar to the Irish one, they wouldn't even be interested in going for the job; it would be constitutional. I doubt people here are inherently more incompetent in choosing their Heads of State than the Irish, who have historically chosen well-loved and respected folk. Anyway, I broadly agree with what others have said - the monarchy is indefensible, but there are other 'vote winners' which the politicians will espouse.
Why is that? Do you just not like the title "President"?
Though if we followed the Irish model, neither of those choices would be likely. We could have a "ceremonial" President with limited powers.
Getting rid of titles, and the idea that we should bow or curtsey to our head of state and their family instead of electing them democratically, seems pretty progressive.
The British PM has become more presidential in recent decades - e.g. Thatcher and Blair.
At present the PM has powers invested in him by the Head of State, the Queen, such as to declare war without parliamentary approval.
This is undemocratic - an unelected head of state should not have powers to dish out important responsibilities like this.
What is the point of abolishing the monarchy to replace it with a ceremonial President?
My problem is not the term President but the people who would be called it. Neither Cameron or Milliband has had a political thought that hasn't been rigourously focus-tested to banality. Everything they do is with the idea of vote winning not what is best for us.
I would rather have Charles as my king than those snake-oil salesman.
Sounds as though you would also object to them being called Prime Minister! Your quarrel seems to be with two particular people, rather than the post they might fill, or be filled by others who you might be OK with.
Why? He would have no actual power.
You'd never fit all the MPs into Parliament at that rate!
I am not pro-Monarchist. I wouldn't care if they disappeared.
My problem is with what would replace them and especially the caliber of the people who would replace them. You only have to look at the people of the front benches of our political parties to see this.
I worked with a wise, elder, man who called them collaborators who would have been shot during the war. They are more interested in their friends in high places and their future careers than the lives of the common man - a few honourable exceptions apart - and they are not the type of people I would want to be our leaders.
Ireland has had Presidents who were widely respected. It could be a completely non-political post.
I think the Lords should operate that way.....done similar to the Jury system....but that you can opt in or not......Only a hundred members though to cut down costs.....
MPs there should be a reduced number and representing an equal number of the public each (for the sake of being democratic)....I would say 400 is more than enough.....but i would add to this that the Mps are able to vote into what they see fit without a whip......this again would add to being more democratic.....
The Lords (which would be renamed the Public 100.....couldnt change laws they would just give and indication in what they wanted......but maybe even with most people having access to the internet peoples opinions could be made there with everyone getting a vote on every issues and then its up to parliment if they want to go with the views or not but at least then the pubics view is known.....