New poll: Long to reign over us?

The poll for Liberal Voice of the Year 2007 will soon be going live – but, in the interregnum, we thought we’d ask that timeless classic: do you think the British monarchy should be abolished?

The hook to hang the question on is provided by the news that 78% of British people want the monarchy to be retained, according to a poll by Gfk NOP commissioned by historian Professor Peter Hennessy, a guest editor of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

Some 78% of respondents agreed that Britain should still have a royal family and 19% disagreed. Asked if the monarchy should end when Queen Elizabeth dies, 68% disagreed and 28% agreed. … When asked if there will be a monarchy in 30 years’ time, 80% said yes and 15% said no. … Meanwhile, a separate poll has suggested that most young people would keep the monarchy, despite more than half saying the royals do not provide value for money. Nearly 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds would keep the royals and overall only 16% of people would vote for a republic.

But do you agree? You can vote now: eyes-right for our poll.

Here are the results of the last poll, started at the beginning of December, which asked: where on the political spectrum would you like the Liberal Democrats to be?

Here’s what you said (in order):

A socially liberal and economically liberal party: 35% (255 votes)
A socially liberal and economically left-of-centre party: 30% (222)
A socially liberal and economically centrist party: 26% (189)
A socially conservative and economically left-of-centre party: 4% (30)
A socially conservative and economically liberal party 3% (23)
A socially conservative and economically centrist party: 2% (13)
Total Votes: 732

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Voice polls.
Advert

16 Comments

  • Hereditary power is both ridiculous and cruel. Look at the suffering that Charles has endured in his life, and that he is passing on to whichever of his kids it is who is next in line. If he truly wants to be head of state then let him stand for election – Charles Windsor for President. At least it would only be for a limited period, not a life sentance. I might even vote for him.

  • Angus J Huck 30th Dec '07 - 2:30am

    In a democracy, those who hold high public office should either be elected or appointed by a fair and open process.

    How can we reject the hereditary principal with respect to the House of Lords, yet uphold it with respect to the monarchy?

    Now, let’s be clear what the hereditary principle means in practice. The heir to the throne succeeds, whoever he or she may be, regardless of suitability to do the job.

    Nicholas Soames sees this as a strength. I disagree. Imagine the consequences if Prince Harry ever ascended the throne? And what would the state of the monarchy be today had Queen Margaret succeeded King George?

    The hereditary principle is a complete lottery.

    Some say that really bad monarchs can be removed. Like Charles I and James II, both of whom tried to arrogate to themselves absolute powers. But in each case much bloodshed and turmoil was required to do it.

    And don’t be beguiled by the unhorseing of Edward VIII. Edward didn’t go because he was a twit, or because he supported Hitler, he was forced from the throne because he insisted on marrying a divorced woman.

    The sycophancy shown towards the Saxe Coburg Gothas sickens me. How can so many of our fellow citizens continue to worship this ghastly bunch of parasites despite all we now know about them?

    We should spend the final years of Elizabeth’s reign to plan for the future. If we don’t, the result will be King Charles and Queen Camilla. Charles Windsor, a man who launched a media whispering campaign against his own wife, and who is so insufferably vain that he requires his ladyfriends to call him “Sir” even while they are doing it. How can a man like that command the respect of the people?

    And how can we condemn a racist who claims that his race is genetically superior to other races, or who maintains that his race has been chosen by God, yet in the very next breath proclaim the special status of the Saxe Coburg Gothas, whose family members are showered with public funds and treated with absurd deference by politicians, the media and much of the populace – almost as if it is some kind of quasi-religious cult?

    The source of the monarch’s legitimacy is his/her claim that he/she has been chosen by God. If that claim is exposed as a deceit, then his/her legitimacy collapses.

  • I don’t think any liberal would suggest replacing the monarch as head of state with an executive president: liberals are not in favour of concentrating power. Therefore yes, a ceremonial head of state as the Irish have. I know we have one already – the argument is about whether it is right at this time in our history to have someone in the post who is there because of who their father or mother was. As regards power, we are all the Queen’s ‘subjects’: you might say that is a matter of semantics, but have a good deep look at the nature of our society and perhaps you will glimpse the way in which it is structured from the top to keep everything fundamentally the same as it always has been. The monarchy in our society is analogous to the Berlin Wall in relation to communism: remove it and the ingrained obeisance to a fossilised social structure will crumble to be replaced by something more vigorous and democratic.

  • Angus J Huck 30th Dec '07 - 7:12pm

    Jock says:

    “But if we had to get rid, given that doing so would involve a lot of constitutional change anyway, might I suggest the Swiss model where a senior member of the elected executive takes the role of head of state each year.”

    That is roughly what I argued in a previous thread on LDV.

    I suggested that the model for the Presidency should be the municipal Mayoralty. Someone with a big ego but vaguely inconvenient is elected by the House of Commons for a 12 month term. It might even be done on a buggin’s turn basis. President Prescott one year, President Johnson the next, and President Oaten the year after that.

    All a President would have to do would be to entertain and chaperone foreign dignatories, and officiate at a few state occasions.

    I would have no problem with the various Windsors continuing to pursue their charitable and philanthropic endeavours, and I would not have any difficulty with theatres, concert halls and race meetings calling themselves “Royal”.

    A private monarchy could continue doing the stuff people like best without the Queen being head of state or she or any member of her family being legally privileged or in receipt of public funds.

    Now that we have abolished the hereditary peerage, titles such as “duke” and “earl” are purely decorative and anyone can use them (you can even buy them) provided you are not trying to impersonate someone.

    I do not see any problem with Elizabeth Windsor calling herself “Queen” even if she ceases to be head of state.

    The royal soap opera (as Malcolm Muggeridge once called it) would trundle on completely separated from government.

    Everyone, apart from Nicholas Soames and Lord St John of Fawsley, would be happy, would they not?

  • Martin Land 30th Dec '07 - 7:54pm

    Of course I would like to abolish the monarchy, but what’s the point – they’d only elect Charles as President!

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • Helen Dudden
    If a seat can be bought in the House of Lords, where is the value of that seat? I've been to Westminster on several occasions and always been checked on the...
  • David Evans
    Jeff, you say "Perhaps not, but it is unreasonable to [seek a pay increase that compensates for the effect of inflation] and retain absurdly archaic working pra...
  • Chris Moore
    @Peter Martin: An economically and mathematically challenged individual might conclude from your intervention that UK GDP per capita was higher in 2007 - 50k...
  • John Medway
    Thanks all for your comments. @William Francis - Yes, although GDP isn't in my view "almost everything", it still has its uses. A precipitate fall in GDP wou...
  • expats
    ......Johnson and Shapps pretend they can’t end the rail strikes..That’s nonsense.. Well our own Munira Wilson seems to have her own ideas (unless she is...