I’m proud to be in a party that values freedom and democracy above all else. We passionately campaign for equality of opportunity, and a world in which success is based on a person’s own merits rather than privilege and nepotism. We want to reform the outdated electoral system, and object to an unelected House of Lords, described by Nick Clegg as “an affront to the principles of openness which underpin a modern democracy”.
That is why I, like many other Liberal Democrats, cannot support a system of monarchy whereby power is inherited and all but one family is excluded from being head of state. It is an affront to democracy. What’s more, it is a system in which transparency is severely limited, and accountability is completely absent.
So on Sunday, as the Queen joins a flotilla of 1,000 boats drifting down the Thames to mark her 60 years on the throne, I will be joining anti-monarchy protesters outside City Hall to demand a choice about who represents us as head of state.
It will be the largest republican gathering in modern times. Sadly, this will remain true whether it attracts 200 or 20,000 people – modern republicans have been let down by previous generations that have preferred to retreat to France rather than make the case for change here. The campaign group Republic, with its 22,000 supporters (double what it was before last year’s royal wedding), is determined not to make the same mistake again.
Many in the party are open about their republicanism, including MPs Norman Baker and Julian Huppert. Reading Councillor Ricky Duveen caused a minor stir in February when he voted against a Tory motion of congratulations for the Queen. “I have spent endless time supporting and campaigning for equality; equality of colour, race, gender, sexual orientation, equality of opportunity,” said Cllr Duveen, “so how can I with one breath shout hurrah for equality, democracy and civil rights and in that same breath shout God Save the Queen”.
Yet strangely many Lib Dems are still not comfortable in ‘coming out’ in favour of an elected head of state. I’ve spoken to senior MPs in the party who have told me they are republican but too scared to say so publicly, as well as countless activists who say it’s just not worth causing a fuss about. Some think it would be politically damaging to be openly republican, though there is no evidence this would be the case.
Like most republicans, I’ve heard the usual arguments time and time again, none of which stack up against the facts. Perhaps heard most often are the “I don’t want President Blair” argument, the “The Queen is above politics” argument, and the “Monarchy is good for tourism” argument. [On which note, I’ve never met anybody who has admitted they would vote for President Blair; elected representatives can be above party politics, as is the President of Ireland and indeed our own House of Commons Speaker; and tourists come for our history not to catch a glimpse of the Queen – and anyway, should we really be basing our constitutional arrangements on what brings in the punters from abroad?]
Of course people will also ask: why not wait until after the Jubilee celebrations? But sixty years without holding an election for head of state is nothing to be proud of. For the Queen, who was given a job for life at 25 and has managed to stay alive ever since, it is merely an achievement of longevity. My gripe is not with the individuals, it’s with the institution. But in a modern democracy, it cannot be taboo to criticise the head of state or the system that put them there, particularly when the Government and media narrative is so unquestioning.
The Liberal Democrats are the natural home of those who want to make radical but rational changes to the way we do things in Britain. We have argued for many years that we need a new way of doing politics, and an end to unearned power and privilege. We should not shy away from applying that to the very top.
* William Summers was the party’s parliamentary candidate in 2010 for North West Norfolk and creator of www.whatthehellhavethelibdemsdone.com.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The Guy Hamper Trio featuring James Taylor: Cowboys are Square
The worst of Liverpool can lead to the best of Liverpool
Same old Tories
Olympia handover imminent but public reopening still some weeks away
On the cliff top
Latest general election voting intention opinion polls
Peter Martin
Tom Harney
Joe Bourke
Lorain
Sandy Smith
94 Comments
William – I applaud your stand and I would like to voice my support for it: I’m a member of the Liberal Democrats and a fully paid up member of Republic. I see no contradiction between the two, rather, harmony: fairness arises from equality of opportunity. How can equality of opportunity be truly established when the principle coming from society’s apex is that one is born into a particular station?
Your argument is very curious in that it tries to suggest many Lib Dems might be republicans who are “not yet comfortable coming out”, I’m not sure by what route you arrived at the conclusion that Lib Dems might on average be any more republican than any other political party in the UK. I doubt they are. In which case, republicans are very much a minority here, as elsewhere.
When you lament “the usual arguments” you try to suggest that no-one would vote for President Blair, but most clearly, they would! They voted for Prime Minister Blair in the first place. What are you trying to argue here? Whoever the next “Blair” will be, let’s be in no doubt that he will exist at some point in the future, whether he be a Prime Minister, a President, a King, or a Mayor. And we won’t know he is that type until *after* he has been elected.
As a monarchist, I believe it’s better to have a head of state that no-one voted for or against, rather than one who claims to represent the country (and therefore each and all of us citizens) but whom I actively *voted against*.
I don’t see the point. The premice of modern democratic-republicanism is that we represent the many (the demos, the people) through the few (the elite, our MPs) and the nation in the One. While it’s obvious that the people who have genuine power to change the law should be answerable to those who obey it, the Monarch holds a totally symbolic office. Democratic accountability isn’t really nessecary, because there’s nothing to be accountable over. All they have to do is be a symbol of the nation. Electing the monarch would be like electing the flag, or the parliament building.
Agree. This seems like a natural issue for the Lib Dems to support. It is often said that the monarchy provides an apolitical stability to the constitution, but as you point out, the Presidents of Ireland and many other countries act as figureheads. My ideal model (as in many other things) would be Germany, or at least a directly-elected version thereof; the president has no formal political role but acts as “the conscience of the nation”. Sort of like the queen, in fact! It may be warned that such a direct election could easily land the country with a laughing stock or ironic head of state, but a) arguably a hereditary monarchy already inherently does that, and b) people are confusing Elizabeth Windsor with the institution of the monarchy, and should probably wait for Charles to become king before making such a judgement!
Incidentally, may I say that even as a staunch republican I have a huge amount of personal respect for Elizabeth Windsor. She has undeniable dignity and gravitas, and I would probably even vote for her to be President, if she opened herself up to election.
I’m in favour of and ‘If it ‘aint broke don’t fix it’ policy. Any chance the Lib Dems could adopt that philosophy?
I’m not sure we need an elected head of state. It would be nice if the politicians we do elect actually represented us, But anyone one who makes the case for a republic gets my support.
Disestablish the monarchy and you can both have an elected head of state and a Queen or King to attract tourists.
Good article and good arguments. I agree but if the coalition teaches us anything it is that we have to toughen up and respond to what the electorate wants. Most people tacitly or overtly support the monarchy so, from a purely cynical point of view, we cannot suddenly declare ourselves republicans. If we did we would lose every single MP we have.
I am completely schizophrenic on this: I support the Queen as I think she fills the role admirably but I recognise that her position is completely anti-democratic. We need a managed shift to a republic but you will not be able to sell that on the doorsteps any time soon.
Our Royal Family have led and served in the ast and do today. To the republicians I say, I defended your right to be wrong for over 20 years of army service. I have lived under a presidential system during 12 years of living in Massachusetts. Even met a man who became President.
But the choice between either system is easy for me, our system, our Monarch and her family who continue to demonstrate serve to lead.
A loyal subject, free to speak my mind
and Liberal Democrat member
Michael, that crystallises my problem with the current system: it is not the Queen, who few deny is admirable, but the Royal Family, who are set apart and above us for no reason other than birth. If we are a democracy in which everyone is equal, why should we have to bow to certain individuals who are not – and most of whom never will be – our head of state? It’s frankly odd and wrong by any measure of fairness, freedom and equality.
Personally, I do not believe in a single head of state, elected or otherwise. I like the executive being a committee, accountable directly as part of the legislature. But I cannot accept the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” philosophy: immunity from Freedom of Information and Parliamentary Questioning makes the state of the current system unknown. It might be broke, it might work really well – I simply don’t know, and as a liberal, transparency and openness from all involved is a must.
@ Wit and wisdom: I accept it would be unpalatable (at present) for the party to officially support scrapping the monarchy. Individual MPs and councillors shouldn’t have too much problem with it though. And there is also a very important role for MPs and the party as a whole to ask questions of the monarchy and royals, particularly around influence and finances.
@ Rebecca Hanson: I hear that a lot, but I do think it is broken already. Lots of public money spent on it (much more than any other European monarchy or non-executive President) and unchecked influence, as well as the fact that it undermines the whole principle of merit and equality in our country. We could do much better.
@ Toby MacDonnell: I disagree that there is nothing to be accountable for. The monarch has a weekly meeting with the PM (not minuted), represents us abroad to other nations, has a veto on any parliamentary Bills that affect her private interests (note: her PRIVATE interests), gets £50m+ in public money, plus massive tax breaks and full time security paid for by the state, etc etc. Part of the problem however is that it is all so secretive that we don’t even know most of what goes on (e.g. the royal family lobbied to remove themselves from FOI rules), so can’t really every know what else she should be accountable for (the Donald Rumsfeld ‘unknown unknowns’!).
“Yet strangely many Lib Dems are still not comfortable in ‘coming out’ in favour of an elected head of state. I’ve spoken to senior MPs in the party who have told me they are republican but too scared to say so publicly, as well as countless activists who say it’s just not worth causing a fuss about. Some think it would be politically damaging to be openly republican, though there is no evidence this would be the case.”
I think that is the case for a lot of politicians in larger parties such as Labour and the Lib Dem. As MPs belonging to mainstream parties, those views will be under scrutiny. Republicanism is an idea deeply at odds with the majority opinion of voters who favour the Monarchy, and may be perceived as electoral suicide if it were to ever be made an issue in Parliament. It is probably easier for smaller/regional parties to be more open about their views (e.g. Leanne Wood, leader of Plaid Cymru) since their influence is mainly confined to certain areas.
While I respect the views of William and other Lib Dems in favour of an elected head of state, the overall Republican movement can’t get off the ground while it has cheerleaders like Peter Tatchell supporting it. The trouble is that it’s still so synonymous with socialism (left wing politics in general) implying that there’s only ‘one type’ of Republican out there.
Interesting to see some Lib Dems anti an elected Head of State; I assume those people are also anti an elected House of Lords?!
I’d personally seek to disestablish the Church of England (not abolish, just disestablish) before I looked at disestablishing the Monarchy.
I second the comment above about how doing this wouldn’t stop the Queen from being monarch – there are plenty of other countries which are political republics which still maintain a Royal Family. The Crown Estates would probably have to revert to control of the Crown though.
William, an election wouldn’t change that state of affairs. Greater transparency would. No good electing a president unless the problems of monarchy are dealt with: and once you’ve done that, what’s the problem with a monarch? They are, after all, the same post.
William, the problem is that a single comment from a single LD councillor or MP reverberates across the country if it is in any way controversial, no matter how correct it might be. If one LD councillor called for a republic you can bet your life it would be on the front page of the Daily Mail within 24 hours and that would damage our standing further.
It’s not right but it would happen. Two words: Marina Pepper. Did nothing wrong, just tried to live her own way and be a LD councillor.
Personally I think that the monarchy (and the House of Lords) helped create a balance that countered some of the problems with democracy. Mainly, to get voted into office there is a lot of pressure for populist policies which in reality might not be the best policy. The present situation seems to have led to one of the most stable countries on the planet.
There is an element of democracy involved in the monarchy and the House of Lords as they are an excepted institution of a democratically elected government. Having people selected on merit, which in a way the monarchy are, by a democratically elected government is a good counter to populist problem with democracy. There may be good reason as to how these people are selected being modified but I think to remove these checks and balances would probably change things in a way most people have not yet imagined. The fact that at some point people, with a reasonably proven record, can check and give their opinions without having to worry about whether what they say is popular or not can only be good in my understanding of existence.
Still, it is a democracy and people want to learn the hard way so be it. At least until it all falls apart and it leaves the way open for a dictator.
I’m definitely in favour of an elected head of state, separate from the Prime Minister, for the purposes of democracy. While the Queen is often seen as a merely symbolic, powerless figurehead, the fact is she still has access to a surprising amount of legislative power if she chooses to use it, and I seem to recall that she has in fact used those powers in the past (I believe she used her power to choose a Prime Minister when a parliament of the 40s or 50s fell apart, though my memory is a bit fuzzy on the details).
However, personally (and I admit this is purely a stylistic thing of little importance) I’d want an elected head of state to still be called King or Queen, as a nod to our history, culture, and national identity. “President” just doesn’t sound right to me for a UK head of state. As I already said, this is just stylistic and doesn’t really matter, it’s just my view on the title a head of state in this country should be given. I’m curious, would anyone else prefer an elected “King”/”Queen” over an elected “President”?
The Monarchy is a totemic institution of considerable importance to a very large majority of the British people. To campaign for its replacement would simply marginalise this party as an irrelevance.
Amen, Moggy. Just like same-sex marriage in many ways.
I don’t really see why we need to replace the monarchy with an elected head of state. Since Liz’s duties seem to amount to a) being in places, and b) not expressing any opinions, then I don’t see why we couldn’t replace her with a goat or a dog, or one of the other animals that organisations like to use as mascots, or anything else that’s capable of being somewhere and not expressing opinions.
Almost, but not quite completely off-topic, anyone have any ideas about who to vote for in the “Unlock democracy” elections ? Are there any “slates” ?
Paul Barker – yes, that is off topic! Could you please use the Forum to discuss it.
Moggy is right (even if I personally favour democracy), David, you are wrong – this is nothing like same-sex marriage, which the majority support.
“It is an affront to democracy.”
Not is isn’t. It’s an affront to your personal, emotional sense of what a democracy should be. Nothing more. The reason it is not actually an affront to democracy is the fact that it has absolutely no practical application. The reason the House of Lords or FPTP are affronts to democracy is that they have substantive and considerable impact on how our laws are passed and policies decided. The Queen has no such power or influence on our laws or governments.
More generally. All ‘democracies’ involve unelected elements having some position. Why do you complain about the unelected role of the Queen, but not that of EU commissioners who have vastly more actual power and influence on our laws? Or the civil service, or Quangos, or the Bank of England, or any of the other unelected individuals who have a considerable impact on how we are governed.
Your particular preference for an elected figurehead president instead of an un-elected figurehead monarch is just a personal, emotional preference. One not shared by the vast majority of people in this country. It is no more democratic or undemocratic than having a monarchy. Indeed one could argue that since the Monarchy is the settled will of the majority of people in this country, and has been since 1660, that it is profoundly undemocratic, not to mention snobbish and elitist, to take such pride in opposing it.
As for protesting during the Jubilee celebration, it is an embarassment, though I understand it’s good publicity for Republic. The jubilee is fundamentally a celebration of the Queen, not the principle of Monarchy. And even Republic should be able, on this day if no other, to raise a glass to a life long and dedicated public servant who has worked harder for longer in service of her country than almost anyone alive today. It may be “But sixty years without holding an election for head of state “, but the day after the Jubilee it will still have been 60 years and Republic has plenty more years to utterly fail to make its case or convince anyone, so why insist on this childish protest on this one day. No good reason.
I think the protests are aimed more at the avalanche of mostly uncritical pro-royal propaganda, union flag-waving nationalism and forced jolity we’re being subjected to, rather than against her Lizness. I don’t think even the most zealous republican really cares all that much about the jubilee per se, but having this cringeworthy, primitive drivel rammed down our throats for months on end while being told to enjoy it is bound to get few backs up.
Unfortunately, the re-packaging of the royals as super celebs and their brand association as utterly synonomous with Britain (e.g. union flags everywhere, rather than royal standards) means that this argument – no matter its intellectual appeal and egalitarian merits – is going nowhere fast. The bread and circus of monarchy will consume itself eventually. Liberal Democrats have other fish to fry.
While I am inclined to support the idea of a republic, two major objections stand out:
– Elizabeth Windsor is probably the most spectacularly capable politician alive today, and nobody else could plausibly do the job better
– There are so many other more important things to address
The first of these points will clearly not extend to the next monarch, and I suspect that public opinion will change after that happens. That might be a good time to give this proposal serious consideration.
I am “out” as a Liberal Democrat Republican. I am happy to make a fuss about that but I don’t see the need to be “in yer face” about it. I agree that Ireland answers most of the arguments against an EHOS. Their President and the previous two are sublime examples of superb Presidents. I don’t think this is a taboo subject, only that it can be boring for many. One point of disagreement: the Queen’s jubilee being ‘merely an achievement of longevity’ is palpably not true. One has to credit her with some skill. By the way, IMHO the biggest argument for an EHOS is Alan Titchmarsh.
oh and, by the way, Ireland has a thriving tourist industry.
Protesting at the Jubilee just because you find royalist celebrations annoying is childish and puerile. It comes down to complaining other people enjoy something you don’t. I find football annoying, I don’t insist on holding protests outside football games just because other people disagree with me. It’s just silly.
Based around the things that mark Ireland out as distinct and uniquely ‘Irish’. Just as the Monarchy is one of the globally recognised things that mark us out as uniquely ‘British’.
Having been made to sit through the heir’s family video all I can say is the sooner the better!
Andrew Suffield
Brenda is very good as a Queen and that is why not even an ardent republican such as me would suggest her removal. She fills the role superbly and would be my choice. That was not the case for a significant number of her predecessors and I have no confidence in her successors.
We have no choice though do we and that is at the crux of the problem. If after 5 years Charles is a disaster – what would we do? I assume you would say ‘but his mum was Queen so he has to be King’
Your comment on her being the most capable politician is a bit dodgy though. I thought one of the defenses for the monarchy is that the do not do politics. Also, what are her views on the big social and international issues of the day – if you know please enlighten us?
I imagine they are all raving Tories with a streak of patronizing paternalism and a view of Britain that is at odds with the reality – my opinion but probably based on as many facts as yours – if not more
As mentioned above, I find it surprising that the LD on this thread are supporting the monarchy. As said if a hereditary HoS is okay why are you so against and appointed HoL? The other problem is that is presumes that there in some special power that can be inherited which means that person is in someway ‘better’ than the rest of us.
I assume no person is ‘better’ than me and I would never bow, wait to be spoken to or call someone sir or ma’am in those situations. Deference and respect has to be earned and I am sorry to say that the Royal Family, apart from Brenda, has done very little to deserve it.
and too add.
I am British and proud of it. We are in many ways a great country and should be proud of ourselves. I find in unspeakably sad therefore, that the only time we celebrate Britishness is when it is linked to the monarchy and this one family. The National Anthem is all about God saving one person/family and nothing about the rest of us. Our Parliamentarians have to take an oath that mentions not the people whom they represent and we see the current brainwashing of our children in schools with the linking of Britishness to the monarchy.
I have been accused of being unpatriotic this week as I will have nothing to do with this ‘jubilee’ – as LD do you agree that?
Agree with Dave Page. The real issue is disestablishing the Church of England. Then the British Monarch could be a defender of freedom of religion rather than a defender of a specific faith.
As a Non-conformist, I’m also in favour of disestablishing the C of E, But then there would be lot of legal disentangling to be done, and the question of (state?) support of many fine buildings which are no longer required for the Church’s core purpose.
As a long-term English resident raised in Ulster, I think it’s slightly ironic that Northern Ireland has provided elected heads of state for two OTHER countries – Irish Republic & Israel.
I’m not sure all previous Irish presidents were as non-political as some earlier cotributors assume.
If William Summers is trying to establish a definitive description of a “Lib Dem” member as that of a secret republican involved in a rolling project of democratic reform which has the underlying ultimate goal of ending the most important cultural traditions in the UK, then that would cause me to question whether support for the Lib Dems is a choice I would want to make for myself.
I don’t see that it’s a big deal to be “out” as a republican. Willie Hamilton did it for decades and was never treated as anything other than a harmless figure of fun.
I once heard (from a usually reliable broadcaster) that there was a Labour Party poster during the 1945 election campaign with the slogan: “Royalty – Who Needs Them?” But I can’t find any mention of this on the web so it may be apocryphal.
I agree with those who say that the Queen has done a great job, and that her 60-year record is the best possible argument for leaving things exactly as they are. It’s one of those things where you can’t justify it on principle or ideological grounds, but from a pragmatic point of view the argument is irresistable. Of course this depends entirely on the incumbent. There may not be much enthusiasm for Charles but I think the people will be happy to tolerate him as a stopgap measure. Once William and Kate become King and Queen, you can forget about republicanism in our lifetimes.
Steven,
It’s not about protesting celebrations we don’t like. It’s about offering a counterpoint to the prevailing, and I would argue false, narrative we’re being fed, and that is being presented to the outside world, that this jubilee represents some sort of spontaneous and universal outpouring of support for the monarchy. We’re not trying to spoil anyone else’s fun, just expressing dissent.
I say “we” though I won’t personally be protesting, having better things to do than spend all weekend reminding myself how much I detest the conservative, sentimentalist character of this poxy country.
Is this posting part of a ‘cunning plan’ to find a new job for a certain Party leader? 🙂
Hang on, has she really done a great job? What has she actually done? We don’t really know, beyond the waving – and, quite frankly, you could pick anyone off the street and they’d do that quite acceptably.
We do know that she has lobbied to be excluded from things such as Freedom of Information. So she clearly doesn’t want to share information with her subjects.
Is political impartiality so important? A Presidency doesn’t have to be particularly strong to make a valuable democratic contribution. In France they came up with the idea of making certain powers jointly exercisable by the President and Prime Minister. That’s an idea we could explore and extend further than they do. At the moment the Prime Minister exercises a huge amount of power as the Monarch’s principal advisor through the Royal Prerogatives: yet nobody’s actually quite sure what limits there are on this, as far as I can tell. I know Republic has been trying to find out.
The advantage of a President with some actual powers is that it provides a direct democratic control over who exercises those powers. With many functions of government it’s logical for the principle of commanding the support of the House of Commons to apply; however, this isn’t true for everything, so there’s a real opportunity to make government more accountable by ditching the present system.
That’s on top of the cost savings: currently our Head of State is one of the most expensive in Europe. It’s also on top of the contribution to the great liberal cause of tearing aside hereditary status and power.
It’s quite simple for me. If it works don’t try and fix it. Calling for an elected head of state for the UK now is quite simply an idea that is not of its time. Something to file away until it is needed. I’d accept that hereditary heads of state are becoming archaic and many will disappear in future decades.
“Hang on, has she really done a great job?”
Yes.
“currently our Head of State is one of the most expensive in Europe”
A good job then that the Crown Estate rakes in more than enough revenue to the Treasury each year to pay for it. There are many good arguments against the Royal Family, but the “cost” one is a complete non-starter.
William Jones
Brenda is doing okay from what I can see and if she should for President I would probably vote for her. Not so sure I am keen on her son or grandson though.
Who says that it will continue work in the future?
Also, I am British and proud of it. I come from fine northern stock and none of my relatives were Nazis or Nazi sympathizers. They also fought in both wars but didn’t get awarded generalships or a plethora of medals for nothing. They would also not expect people to bow to them or shops them deference and would be polite.
One of them would have made a pretty good HoS – pity they couldn’t have the opportunity but then again there seems to be a limit to equality of opportunity!
A LD party which puts constitutional reform at the heart of its philosophy looks a little weak when the logical consequence (i.e. elected HoS) is put to one side for expedience sake. It would have to be agreed to by the people but saying this is something you would ideally like to see would be both brave and coherent
It takes a spectacular level of political talent to sit in that position and have people believe that you “do not do politics”. Keep in mind that the Prime Minister is obliged to have a weekly private audience with her about current issues (at which she has both a right and a duty to express her opinions), and she does a great deal of international diplomacy on behalf of the nation, and has once or twice been called upon as the decision maker of last resort when elections have failed to deliver a workable government.
And throughout decades of all this stuff happening, she’s remained popular and in control. More than that, pretty near everybody thinks she’s doing a brilliant job, and she’s never accused of partisanship.
That’s political skill at its highest. If we had people that talented in the Commons then the nation would run a lot more smoothly.
This is misleading: it is simply the case that a large chunk of the UK’s diplomatic budget is processed through Buckingham Palace (most of those “tea parties” that people like to complain about are meetings of ambassadors and similar, which have been dressed up in the pomp and ceremony of royalty in order to impress other nations).
If we didn’t have the monarchy, those things would still have to happen. They would just happen on some other department’s budget.
We dress our military up in fancy dress and millions pay to come to this country to see them. No-one has rumbled us yet so just keep quiet about it. Walt Disney tried but hasn’t come close.
Our system is also clever because it doesn’t have a sell-by date.
Keep quiet – enjoy the spectacle and count the profits the monarchy brings to this country.
I’m enough of a political pragmatist to see If there was an idea that could finally finish off the Lib Dems this is it. The scandinavian model is probably the best that could be hoped for. Britan is utterly riven with snobbery and class divisions and it starts at birth and is kept going by people who are doing very nicely from it. Could is hark back to the Saxon and Normans.? Maybe, but then there’s the celts.
Once the Jubilee is over, this nation really does need to debate the future of the monarchy. If nothing else, it needs to resolve the “Who’s Next” question. Otherwise, one day the succession question will arise, and it will do nobody any good if that results in a long muddled wrangle between Charles and William!
william, i lol at your strangely reticent lib-dem republicans.
this is a representative democracy, and the elected representatives know that they are unlikely to get elected if they fail to represent their
For Goodness sake this is the sort of issue that makes us look so detached from ordinary voters…..before we even think about this …..shouldnt we start screaming about the fact most youngsters dont have a job and our government is about as radical as a tea pot , before we yet again show the voters that we are thinking about subjects which have about as much importance to them as the poulation of the capital of Mongolia!
demos. (sorry for the missing conclusion, using smartphones in rural poland is not conducive to clear.text).
Are we as a Party supportive of inequality, whereby privilege is gained as a result of an accident of birth?
Royalists are, Republicans are not!
Does that mean there is no place for monarchies in the lib-dens?
That would be a courageous position to adopt in a manifesto…………
Frankly I wonder why with a truly synchophantic media, filled with pro-monarchist propaganda there are still people who can campaign for an elected Head of State. .
Why would we want an elected head of state? Can you imagine a president Clegg, President Cameron, President Brown or PResident Blair?
The royals have their faults but they actually seem to care about the country and do what they do out of a genuine sense of duty, I see no hint of that commitment and deceny in any of our politicians who are only interested in being elected.
“Are we as a Party supportive of inequality, whereby privilege is gained as a result of an accident of birth?
Royalists are, Republicans are not!”
Unless you’re suggesting that we take all children away from their parents and raise them in weird communes then that will be always true. To suggest it’s a fact even vaguely related to the Monarchy suggests you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
i don’t wish to engage with these arguments as they are arguments i’ve been having all day but the levels of sycophancy from some of you is unreal.
LOL, I just think they are effective.
The only reason for a level ‘above’ a prime minister and the government is to provide checks and balances. This could be done by an elected upper chamber. It might seem really strange (and I’d be interested to know if anyone’s ever done it before elsewhere) but I really don’t see any need for a level above that. In other words, we don’t actually need a head of state at all – elected or otherwise. After all, what do they do? Bless chrysanthemums, as de Gaulle said, and then of course they greet other Heads of State, which could be done by any civil servant from the foreign office. Until such time, that is, that they took our lead and abandoned figureheads as well!
Arguments in favour of preserving social structures that comprise a part of the cultural heritage of the nation of which you are a member should not be seen as a manifestation of “sycophancy” as this is to trivialise beliefs (“royalist”) that are capable of standing in equal status alongside those that are characterised by a desire to “modernise” constitutional structures (“republican”). Cultural heritage is often destroyed by modernisation.
What Moggy said. Spot on.
It is quite clear that the vast majority of the country want the Queen to remain as head of state and the established Church. I certainly do. In particular, I see on a recent BBC opinion poll 73% of England want the Queen to remain as head of the Church and “Defender of the Faith”.
Tired of reading bizarre opinions that we should rip up the constitution of this country in favour of some new utopia.
And I’m a Lib Dem voter and member. Goodness knows what the public who lined the river for the Queen would be thinking if they read this. Lost deposits, all round?
I find the idea of an elected head of state entirely foolish as a policy for any political party seeking to govern the United Kingdom. The current monarchy does not rule by decree, instead serving as a figure head for a nation otherwise governed by democratic means. EIIR, is tremendously popular. Eventually she will pass on, leaving her eldest son, Charles to be our King. It might make sense then to hold a plebiscite confirming him as Monarch: I have no doubt that he will be accepted by a huge majority, 4 to 1 or better. The Liberal Democrats have far more pressing things to worry about. If they were fantastically popular they might have the space to adopt some stunningly unpopular policies, they are, however, currently fantastically unpopular. It would make more sense to promote some pro-monarchist policies, instead. Royal yacht, anyone?
I note the use of the two Mary’s, Robinson and McAleese, wonderful recent Presidents for Ireland, as an indication that an elected British head of state could serve as a successful non-political office to the credit of our United Kingdom. Sorry to disappoint, though, but some of their predecessors were hopeless duffers, divisive party hacks or small-minded Little Irelanders. And they were all proposed and supported by established political parties. An elected head of state would more likely divide rather unite and would almost certainly be much less popular for prolonged periods than our current impartial monarchy.
Paul McKeown
So principles are out then? LD should support pro-monarchist policies because there may be a few grubby votes in it. I personally do not see how a party that supports constitutional reform at the levels is spoken about can support a monarchy.
There is no need to make it a high priority but it is incoherent to support a hereditary principle.
You propose a vote to confirm Charles, this is unconstitutional and would require a Parliamentary Act setting aside the Act of Settlement which says that as soon as Brenda breathes her last then Charles is King from that moment on. Perhaps, if we are allowed a vote then perhaps other candidates could stand? In fact why not have a vote each time the previous incumbent dies but then we could set a fixed ten and hey presto we have an elected HoS. Simples.
Public opinion is fickle and the current 20% republican level could increase. Remember being a republican is an active choice as is being a monarchist. There are a significant number who passively support the status quo but aren’t really monarchists in the sense of the word and could shift opinion.
“Principles are out then?”
I would prefer it if you didn’t put words in other people’s mouths, thank you.
I thought the idea that an impartial head of state was more likely to unite than a partial political head of state was made clear from my two posts, but there you have it. People read what they want to read and disregard the rest.
There is no geunine reason (but many dubious and unevidenced assertions) to believe that an elected head of state will lead to better governance, a higher profile on the international stage or more influence, more transparency in public life, better democratic accountability, a closer connection between public institutions and the public itself, or a more egalitarian society. There are however emotional beliefs, wrapped up high sounding statements regarding modernity and constitutional neatness. They won’t, however, solve any real world problem whatsoever.
There is, however, an important aspect of practical politics, which apparently you sneer at. If you want to change anything in a democracy you must be elected in the first place. Associating a party with policies that are a popular anathema (even if “there is no need to make it a high priority”) is not the way to get elected. That might change with the changing popularity of the monarchy, but don’t hold your breath, at least for the next half century.
Paul McKeown
Touchy!
The hereditary principle in any role is fundamentally wrong and should not be supported by any liberal party. Where it sits on the order of priorities in different but I think there should be some statement of intent
You seem to be undermining the concept of democracy, perhaps we should make Brenda the PM as well, seeing all the sycophancy that surrounds her it is assumed probably that she would be some kind of superstar in the role.
Why should the HoS be political? Surely if Charlie is so popular as you suggest he will win. Followed by a victory for William. If they are not popular enough to get elected then why should they be HoS based on their blood
You also actually promoted the idea of taking pro-monarchy policies in order to grub some votes – that is where the lack of principles is most apparent
At the end of the day I would like one of my children to have the chance of becoming the HoS of my country. They should have as much the right as someone who is the direct descendant of Electress Sophia of Hanover. I know it will not happen in my lifetime probably but in this day and age we should be at least be prepared to stand up for what is right.
Using your approach we would not have votes for the poor, women and homosexuality would be illegal as they were not popular causes in the past.
I am a great believer in democracy but I would rather take my chances with the lottery of genetics than have people like Tony Blair and David Cameron deciding who enters the House of Lords. Jobs for the chums..!!
Keith Browning
Pardon?
So you want the Queen to appoint the HoL or I suppose you could mean hereditary peers?
Elections to the HoL would be an option but that seems to being kicked into the long grass again.
I would suggest you read some books about the genes and the members of the Royal Family. We have a good Queen on the throne at the moment which makes finding support for the republican cause difficult – it has not always been thus and it will not always be thus in the future
“perhaps we should make Brenda the PM as well”
Don’t be silly. EIIR has no executive function. That is why it is a red herring to put the role up for election.
“You also actually promoted the idea of taking pro-monarchy policies in order to grub some votes”
Your lack of irony and humour shines through all.
Paul McKeown
Well sorry to miss your attempts at humor – I think you need to work on that a bit more!
Can you also not see the irony in your comment. You extol the virtues of Brenda, saying how much better a non-elected HoS compared to any of the other options – why not the same for the executive
Can you also answer my question on why my kids can never be HoS – are they less worthy than the bloodline of the Electress of Hanover?
My relations have never been Nazis, attended Nazi funerals, claimed that they had ‘inhibitions about the Jews’ or been casually racist on a number of occasions – but then again that is only fun isn’t it?
I take this part of the constitutional framework of the UK as seriously as your party does PR and HoL reform – funny when you touch on this subject you get accused of being too serious.
@bazzasc
“You extol the virtues of Brenda”
I have hardly extolled anyone’s virtues. You might like to quote that.
“why not the same for the executive”
Errr? So by your binary illogic, the state has the choice between an unelected figurehead with a democratically elected legislature, otherwise it should return to feudalism?
I see no evident reason from your posts of abolishing the monarchy other than your dislike of toffs. That is not a persuasive argument. As for party allegiances, I wish to see the Lib Dems form a majority government sometime in my lifetime, as their values chime with mine much more than those of any other party do. For that reason, I would strongly oppose the Lib Dems adopting the policy of abolishing the monarchy at this point in time. Other political parties are welcome to promote such electoral strychnine.
“My relations have never been Nazis…”
Every family has black sheep, only most families escape the glare of the media.
Paul McKeown
I agree but then those families are not treated as being special and that their genes are superior to the rest of us! If a politician’s spouse had 3 sisters that joined the Nazi Party do you think they would have had much success?
The point I am making is not that these are necessarily bad people, just that the are not special either and so should not be treated as such
@Stuart Mitchell:””Hang on, has she really done a great job?”
Yes.”
Oh well that’s OK then – thanks for such a convincing and elaborate argument.
““currently our Head of State is one of the most expensive in Europe”
A good job then that the Crown Estate rakes in more than enough revenue to the Treasury each year to pay for it.””
So land that really belongs to us, the people, is used by them to pay for themselves. Brilliant.
“If a politician’s spouse had 3 sisters that joined the Nazi Party do you think they would have had much success?”
There is a Liberal Democrat peer who’s (non direct) family have pretty major links to both German and English Nazis (Lord Redesdale).
“My relations have never been Nazis, attended Nazi funerals,”
There are many criticsms that can be made of Phillip. Attacking him for attending the funeral of his sister when he was 16 seems a bit harsh – particularly as he did fight against the Nazis in WWII.
Hywel
Prince Philip had three sisters who joined the Nazi Party. People fight in wars for many different reasons not only because they are ideologically opposed and Philip has a bit of history for casual racism.
The reason why this is relevant is that we are supposed to treat them with deference as though they are better than us – those genes are so good that they justify abandoning all the arguments we have for equality. I know life is not equal but to have something so blatant undermines alternative arguments.
My argument is that these are not particularly worthy people who are allowed to get away with doing and saying things that others wouldn’t – so why do we defer to them?
As I said above the LD are passionate about PR, HoL reform etc. I support these but also take it the logical step further in calling for a change of appointment HoS. I repeat the question why are your or my children deemed less worthy than the descendants of a German aristocrat!
To all those who claim the monarch is non-political – do you really believe that will always be the case and what would your response be if Charlie took on a more active role
Thanks for all the comments!
To address a few more:
@ Andrew Suffield: “Elizabeth Windsor is probably the most spectacularly capable politician alive today, and nobody else could plausibly do the job better”. Are you seriously saying that in a country of 60m people, it is unlikely that even one of us could do a better job? I find that extremely hard to believe. Not just, mathematically, but also given the fact that the present monarch has stood against reform throughout her reign. Ask anybody to name just one memorable speech, event or even quote in her 60 years on the throne and you will be met with blank stares (or “annus horribilus”!).
@ Stuart Mitchell: The “Crown Estates revenue pays for the monarchy” is another often repeated fallacy. The Crown Estate is merely held in trust by the sitting monarch. The idea that the Queen could personally sell off the UK’s beaches, for example, is ludicrous. It’s legal and technical, but plenty on this if you look, including another link from Republic (see page 11 on Crown lands): http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf [Also includes comparative costs of other monarchies in Europe]
@ David: “Can you imagine a president Clegg, President Cameron, President Brown or PResident Blair?” No! None of them would get elected. Mary McAlesse in Ireland, on the other hand, was re-elected to President unopposed because she was so popular. And ultimately democracy is about the person with the most electoral legitimacy winning. That’s not always who you personally vote for. Also, the Queen (or Prince Charles) is very welcome to stand in any election, and I wouldn’t even complain if they won it!
@ Paul McKeown: If an elected head of state is a “duffer”, we can ditch them at the next election or even before (as per the President of Germany). If a “duffer” inherits the role for life, we’re stuck with him or her for maybe 50 years or more!
“Prince Philip had three sisters who joined the Nazi Party. ”
Doesn’t necessarily follow that he agreed with them. Or else where does that leave the Communist Mitford?
How distant do Nazi relations have to have been for them to disbar you from public life then? Obviously it seems sisters do but great-nieces (or whatever the two Nazi Mitfords are to the current Lord Redesdale) are OK. So at what point between the two do you draw the line?
“Are you seriously saying that in a country of 60m people, it is unlikely that even one of us could do a better job? I find that extremely hard to believe.”
That happens with elected figures 🙂
” Ask anybody to name just one memorable speech, event or even quote in her 60 years on the throne and you will be met with blank stares (or “annus horribilus”!).”
Addressing a state dinner on the Irish visit with the opening sentence in Gaelic.
We’re not being very imaginative here. Almost everybody posting is either dogmatically royalist or dogmatically anti. There are a lot more options which Britain should consider:
1. If nothing else – Is it Charles or William next? As noted above, the consitutional experts think Charles is a shoo-in. The nation at large thinks William is the shoo-in. We have had rather a lot of succession disputes, Pretenders, Jacobite rebellions etc over the last 1000 years. If we don’t think about this properly, we could have another medieval civil war in the 21st century!
2. Why not both? Why not elect a President whose job is to take over the “final backstop” governance functions such as deciding which party leader to invite to form the next government – While also keeping the monarch as titular head of state? This wouldn’t cost a significant amount, and it would get rid of the concern that we still have an element of hereditary government power, while keeping the monarch in place to please most Britons and please the tourist industry?
3. In addition, why not make anyone who has ever been elected for a political party ineligible to stand for President? I’d quite like to see David Attenborough slug it out for President against Alex Ferguson and Trevor McDonald, with no politicians in sight. So I suspect would many others.
“Can you imagine a president Clegg”
We don’t have to. Nicholas William Peter Clegg has been Lord President of the Council for the last two years.
Oh yes, definitely. Imagine the job advert:
“Wanted: head of state. Must have at least 20 years experience in diplomacy, court protocol, and never doing anything that might embarrass the nation.”
All qualified applicants are currently engaged elsewhere in the world.
(You could easily make a good argument that just about anybody could do the job better than Charles)
Okay, can I have an answer to two questions please:
i. Why in the UK should only the children of one family be considered for the throne? What makes them different or superior to my children?
ii. Why do the same arguments not apply to politicians? Perhaps Euan Blair or one of the Cameron kids, or Mark Thatcher should be the next PM. Perhaps the latter is a good example of why hereditary monarchies are not a good idea.
Anyone is still at liberty to raise an army and try to take the Tower, the Palace and the seats of government. Being monarch was always a risky business and many of the protagonists were killed in the process. The pageantry we have witnessed is just a continuation of that same process, which has been taking place in Britain since people arrived.
As a blood descendent of the Grey family, one who tried and failed to take over the Crown, I feel that in different circumstances it could have been my lot waving from the balcony, but life is about winners and losers.
The last few days has been a demonstration of the power of the state to control its own people and to send a message to the rest of the world. I’m not too sure there will be many dissendent groups meeting in taverns, contemplating the logistics of assembling an army of archers and pikemen, just at the moment.
If the Lib Dems are the Party of decentralisation then I would make this comment:
The party of decentralisation should not also be the party of “identity destruction” – an identity which was recognised and also rediscovered by millions of people within the events of the past few days during our Queen’s Jubilee celebrations – it was one massive team effort which we should be proud of!
Will’s (entrely logical) position, if adopted and advocated by the party would simply add yet another nail to our coffin. How attractive a proposition would it be to say to the public ‘hey, not only do we want more immigrants and really love the EU, but we are also against the Queen.’
Sorry Will, however principled your position, it is electoral suicide, and should not be touched with a bargepole.
@ LondonLiberal – As I think I said in a comment above, I am not advocating the Lib Dems officially call for an end to monarchy (yet!), so I agree with you on this. However individual cllrs & MPs should not be shy of it. Additionally, there is a real accountability gap for the monarchy (finances, FOI, foreign trips and favours, etc) that needs more scrutiny – Parliament needs to do it more, and the party can have a role in this. Scrutiny is good for all of us and doesn’t even have to be anti-monarchy – the Daily Mail criticises the royals more than almost anyone.
A republic isn’t going to happen unless / until the Queen’s successors make a complete mess of it (and there’s zero chance of Andrew or Edward becoming king).
Get over it and campaign on issues that (a) actually matter and (b) have some chance of coming to pass.
“we are not advocating the Lib Dems officially call for an end to monarchy (yet!)”
Another ‘courageous’ manifesto platform!
Will – i don’t think we should even unofficially call for it, and i think that the idea is really bad, let alone massively unpopular, however logical and principled. Of course individual members may believe in it and good luck to them, but i don’t think it is something that we should be overtly, covertly, explicitly, implicitly or any other way arguing for. More scrutiny, yes – that sounds fine. But as Old Codger Chris says, lets’s focus on things that really matter.
@ Old Codger Chris & LondonLiberal – I do focus on other things! I get that argument a lot, but it starts with the assumption that people are one-dimensional and can only process one issue at a time. If something is wrong and unjust, I’m against it, and I won’t put up with it just because the majority of people disagree with me. Without an active republican campaign and people willing to speak out we will never make any progress on the issue (as the last 20 years has shown).
And as I’ve also said, it is vital in a functioning democracy that the monarchy has some opposition and scrutiny, even if it remains in place. By way of example, it was me who uncovered through an FOI request that Prince William had abused his position in the army to use a Chinook helicopter to go to his cousin’s stag party on the Isle of Wight. The official line before this – from both the Palace and the MOD – was an outrageous lie that he had been given permission to do that. He had not, and had actually used taxpayer funded equipment for joy rides and personal engagements. I suspect he would think twice before doing it again. Seemingly no journalists, officials or MPs had dared to question the official response up to that point.
Sources below in case you’re interested (and to justify my claim of outrageous lying!):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1895695/RAF-defends-Prince-Williams-Chinook-helicopter-trip-with-Harry-to-stag-party.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1084190/How-William-hoodwinked-commanding-officer-stag-party-trip-10m-Chinook.html
Being in a minority on an issue used not to frighten Liberals.
A glance at countries that similarly have a parliamentary system with a powerful prime minister but also an elected president shows that it is incorrect to say that the voters would pick the same kind of people who become prime minister (such as Blair or indeed Thatcher) and also answers the argument that there’s no point because our monarchs are powerless.
Whether the president is directly elected as in Ireland or indirectly as in Germany or Italy, people look for something rather different – a politically-aware outsider, a well-informed public figure who is not a front-line politician or a senior politician who they think can be a unifier and judicious. The commonly accepted requirements for a good prime minister, such as decisiveness, debating skill and a firm grip on his or her party, are not all the same and voters or parliamentarians are capable of realising that. Some veteran hacks get through but even they can show surprising depths.
Precisely because such a president is not the product merely of descent but of election or selection, he or she has some authority which is generally used sparingly, but can be deployed at times of crisis, when a government collapses and a new one does not easily emerge from the mess, or when the basic values of the country and its constitution are endangered. The embarkation on the Iraq war could have been such a time.