I have a blank page. Let’s see if you can get halfway down with genuine reasons why we should endure this pantomime.
I have no problem getting rid of the pantomime. But it won't make any material difference to who actually runs/****s up the country. Which is what I actually said.
I won't be any richer. Or more "free".
A lot of land and property will be freed up, so the rich and clueless will be keen to jump in and try and make money from it. So no change there.
I suspect we'd end up with a head of state, democratically elected or not. Not convinced we need one, as TJ has pointec out.
Just because I'm not demanding their heads on spikes doesnt mean I'm a supporter. Pretty patronising of some of you to jump to that conclusion.
What unintended consequences?.
Well I used to believe that whilst it was essentially a ceremonial role it provided a safeguard against things like a PM just deciding to pro-rogue parliament to get their own way... but alas that seemed not to be so.
Why do we need a ceremonial head of state? Answer is we do not.
Ceremonial - no - but many countries do have a separate HoS and PM. One of your unintended consequences could be that the simply hand all the monarch's powers to parliament without reforming parliament to build in suitable safeguards. The Borris-Truss-Sunack mess with the minimal democratic input is bad enough - but to give them even more power without a public vote would be even more dangerous.
At least some of the countries that have one figure above them all, also seem to have political involvement in their judicial system. Is that something we would want? All those issues can (and should) be thought through, but its a bit like Brexit or Indy, just because there is probably a sensible least damaging compromise option available doesn't mean thats the one you'll get. That said, "better the devil you know" is a shit excuse for not changing.
Although if you honestly think the status quo is acceptable try explaining it to some 14 year olds. Especially if you explain that in their lifetime the inheritance was only passed to boys (until they ran out of them).
I have no problem getting rid of the pantomime. But it won’t make any material difference to who actually runs/**** up the country. Which is what I actually said.
I won’t be any richer. Or more “free”.
A lot of land and property will be freed up, so the rich and clueless will be keen to jump in and try and make money from it. So no change there.
So, the revolution starts with getting rid of the people hiding behind the royals and then working outwards? Which means that at some point we'd have to get rid of the royals because they are a symbol of everything that the revolutionary comrades are getting rid of. Why not start with the most obvious symbol?
The adoption of proportional representation voting, binning off the HoL and replacement of the royal family with a person who can do the job* properly, can all be done at the same time.
Tax reform and getting rid of all private schools can also be done simultaneously with the above and would also have a massive positive benefit to the UK
(*Challenge of the performance of the prime minister and cabinet)
Seem to remember they have a TV production company that knocks this shit out.
Caught some of the early morning news over the last few weeks, well it's news in loosest sense! People trying to catch each other out over gender labels, in a competition of who's got the moral high ground, ****less kids and their useless parents etc... A load of diversionary right wing bollocks designed to motivate older voters, you know the one's who are always right about everything and always vote!
