Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/johnband/sharpener.johnband.org/index.php:1) in /home/johnband/sharpener.johnband.org/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Figurehead http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/ Trying to make a point Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:21:35 +0000 hourly 1 By: The Monarchy -reform or replace? - Voting TaKtiX http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-36891 Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:31:44 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-36891 […] July MatGB08:12 pm2 Comments At The Sharpener, Andrew has an interesting idea as to what could replace the Monarch as ceremonial head of state. This follow on from an excellent discussion at Robert Sharp’s a few weeks back, but rather than rehash my old posts, might as well simply link to them. Why I converted from Republicanism to constititutional monarchism, and why we need a constitutional convention to sort this, and all the other messes, out. […]

]]> By: Shuggy http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-23708 Wed, 26 Jul 2006 19:00:17 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-23708 Which would be worse; President Blair or President Thatcher?

It really comes to something when I find that decision hard to make.

I know what you mean. But I don’t find it a hard decision to make. Blair’s would be worse. Thatcher was more liberal.

]]> By: MatGB http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-23421 Tue, 25 Jul 2006 19:06:22 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-23421 Ah, no no, I thought it was Home but couldn’t be bothered to look it up, but I do know that the soundings were taken, but they had to let Liz choose. Soon after that, they developed a system for electing leaders, the two were linked but they’d been planning on it anyway.

but, she chose Wilson over Heath. To choose “not Heath” was also to choose Wilson, same decision, two outcomes; she sacked one, chose the other. QED ;-)

Thorpe would’ve been funny though (and a legitimate choice as it happens); you need to be able to command a majority in the HoC, that’s really it. Thorpe could probably have built a Govt with moderates on both sides of the big 2. Would’ve been weird, but, y’know, counterfactuals are always silly fun.

Shuggy, I think the point of Andrew’s article is to resist the idea of a presidential system as well? On that I agree with him completely. Which would be worse; President Blair or President Thatcher?

It really comes to something when I find that decision hard to make.

]]> By: dave heasman http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-23289 Tue, 25 Jul 2006 12:02:53 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-23289 Mat, ah yes, I remember, the old Grocer was hard to remove. But you can hardly say that she therefore chose Wilson, can you? I mean, the one led to the other somewhat inevitably. It might have been fun if she’d chosen Thorpe. Or Callaghan. Or Thatcher, I suppose.

“..also the Tory when wossname died (way before my time – Home?).”

Noone died. Churchill lasted till 1965, Eden till 1977, Home & MacMillan until the 90s.
Home was a surprise selection after MacMillan quit, but I doubt Liz had anything to do with it. The Tory Party took “soundings”, which said, as they had in 1957, “not Butler”.

]]> By: Shuggy http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-23161 Mon, 24 Jul 2006 23:25:54 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-23161 She, and the Monarchy that she embodies, represents a Britain of deference, of domination, of class, of imperialism.

An excutive president, like wot they have in the US, is essentially an idealised monarch. But in practice, and particularly since the 1980s, they reflect the political partisanship of the nation rather than its historical traditions. I’m not sure this is preferable at all. Why does everyone think the head of state should ’embody the nation’ in some sort of mystical way, anyway? And why does Tony Blair think he’s the head of state when he really isn’t? We may never know. But it seems reasonable to assume that life under President Blair would have been, or might be in the dystopian future, significantly less congenial than it is now?

]]> By: MatGB http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-23097 Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:45:53 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-23097 Dave; she (technically) sacked Heath; I remember (vaguely) reading a paper on it, 1st ’74 election, he’d lost a majority but thought he could maintain a minority administration, which was, IIRC, the constitutional precedent.

She thought otherwise. Ergo, she also chose Wilson, and also the Tory when wossname died (way before my time – Home?).

Pedantic, but accurate, point; she ahs power, and has exercised it, she could do so again. Whether Charles could get away with it the way she did is debatable, but officially the power is all there.

]]> By: AndrewB http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-23015 Mon, 24 Jul 2006 13:05:51 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-23015 “Although the punctuation needs some work.”

Just in case anyone wonders, I did try to edit the text and consign my mistake to the memory bin.

“but still have someone, an individual, who can meet people, be respected, etc.”

It has been suggested that Stephen Fry would be perfect for this role, seeing as he seems to host every award show in Britain, why not move him from handing out BAFTAs to handing out gongs? And anyone who saw the Queen’s attempts at comedy the other week will know that this is one area in which our head of state could certainly improve.

I’ve give Bush one thing; his routine with the Bush impersonator was actually pretty funny, though I did detect an air of menace, as if he could take the piss out of himself because, whatever is said, he is one of the most powerful men on Earth. And for all this power, his imagination sometimes seems to extend no further than using it to project force.

]]> By: Planeshift http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-22979 Mon, 24 Jul 2006 12:05:04 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-22979 Don Meaker is right. There is only one possible reason for thinking George Bush is a moron. Apart from Iraq nobody has questioned any of his policies.

]]> By: dave heasman http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-22977 Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:55:46 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-22977 I doubt Charlie could get away with sacking/appointing prime ministers.
(I actually doubt Charlie could get away with being King)

Come to think of it, Mat, who are the ones Liz appointed? Home? McMillan? Who did she sack? Eden?

]]> By: Jonn http://sharpener.johnband.org/2006/07/figurehead/#comment-22927 Mon, 24 Jul 2006 09:32:55 +0000 http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/07/23/figurehead/#comment-22927 Andrew:
it is not true to say that American’s are morons, or that America is a moron nation

Mat:
Fairly clear to me.

Although the punctuation needs some work.

…what are you looking at me like that for? Okay, the monarchy debate:

Mat:
I think the Head needs some power, but should mostly be ceremonial, doing all the “State” stuff like visits, tours, etc and leaving the “political” stuf to the PM and Cabinet. You then don’t get those dumb Britney moments but still have someone, an individual, who can meet people, be respected, etc.

I agree, as happens depressingly often, with Mat. I think the best result at present would be to leave the Monarchy in place but to formalize its status as a figurehead, and codify the constitution so that power instead lies in Parliament. Like a fair chunk of the British constitution, it’s not that the system is bad at present – it’s that the rules are all based on convention, and convention, as Blair shows us repeatedly, can be cast aside on a whim.

]]>