[Closed] Republicans ... miserable bunch arn't they?

My view that the concept of monarchy has no place in our country in 2012 is my own.

I don't require any sort of celebrity endorsement of this view.

JY - so Madiba, what an excellent choice for so many reasons. Indeed a multi-top trump card. How ironic that Madiba himself plays the role sometimes played by the monarchy. In addition to the figure of national unity he is the figure who protects the interests of the minority against all the odds and the legacy of his detention.

Interesting also that Jonathan Wolff, the Prof or Philosophy at UCL agues in "An introduction to Political Philosophy", that "Black South Africans were enfranchised for the first time...the mere fact that they now had the vote was a way of recording that black South Africans were at last treated as worthy of respect....Having a vote, then, seems to be important irrespective of what people do with it."

And what did happen with it - by 2011 what had become of the valued treasure of democracy? Was it the rule of the people or the rule of the mob? Jacob Zuma announced that, “When you vote for the ANC (African National Congress), you are choosing to go to heaven. When you don’t vote for the ANC, you should know that you are choosing that man who carries a fork…who cooks people.” I wonder how the atheists feel about that - the tyranny of the ANC/Christians over the rest of the population. *

The perfect example of why democracy was for most of human history barring the Ancient Greece and recent modern society was a universally detested political system (Wolff page 63). The first great (potential) flaw of democracy - the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Small wonder then that by 2011, only 10% of South Africans thought that voters should hold MPs to account, whereas as many as four out of ten believed that presidents should be able to “decide everything”. So how bizarre is that?

Hence we come back to the first important role of the constitutional monarch - the person with a social contract to protect against the tyranny of the majority and to respect the rights of the minority. Madiba arguably plays that role in SA as does ERII in the UK, a fact recognised by PMs of all parties who recognise this important role. Wasn't it Cherie Blair who was shocked at the transformation of Tony Blair when he realised how she played this role. It is this that lies at the heart of Starkey's point (I think) that the monarchy plays a very valuable role in restricting political extremes and protecting the interest of the minority.

*I was going to be controversial and go for Ghandi but thought better of it...i[b]magine if religion got dragged into this[/b].

Sorry couldn't be avoided ! 😉

Teamhurtmore any chance you could write about something relating to Britain? SA politics is about as far removed a democracy from Britain as its possible to get. I fail to see how any point you can make can be relevant.

A-A, of course but if JY lays down his top trump and asks for my card it would be rude not to respond!

You obviously missed the bit about the monarchy playing a balancing role that protects against political extremes and the tyranny of the majority a fact that PMs seem to recognise without political favour. Sorry if that message was so hidden!?! 😕

But the fact that democracy is a relatively modern concept in itself and that until recently was a detested rather than a lauded system of government is easy to forget.

That's funny, there was me thinking that the most vibrant, inventive and forward-striving period in our recent history was when Queen Victoria was on the throne, we had engineers like Brunel and a global Empire and Commonwealth run by a few hundred people in London. So why, exactly, is the Monarchy now an impediment when it wasn't then? Enquiring minds want to know.

Comes as no surprise that someone who supports the Monarchy can only link to past achievements and not base an argument on their relevance today, while at the same time promoting some sort of romanticism for the days of Empire.

Have you been away all weekend El-bent?

fatboyslo - Member
I can understand them being miserable ....

After all wouldn't you be when you realised you just picked Mitt Romney as your candidate

but have zero respect for Princess Tony, his grinning Gargoyle of a wife, Gordon Broon, Prince Andrew, Peter ******* Mandelson, and all the politicians we have who seem to think that a position in government comes with a cast-iron sense of entitlement just as offensive as some on here find the so-called 'Toffs', seeing as how the allegedly Left-leaning ones have just as posh backgrounds, and educations, as the right-of-centre.

Whoosh. Where did that come from?

You don't have to be a lefty to be a Republican. My political leanings are centre right. You can have as much or as little respect for politicians of any persuasion as you like but they are only in power because someone voted for them and not because they were born into the position.

You obviously missed the bit about the monarchy playing a balancing role that protects against political extremes and the tyranny of the majority a fact that PMs seem to recognise without political favour. Sorry if that message was so hidden!?! 

so to miss quote that film what has the queen done for us in terms of preventing the tryany f the majority?

You obviously missed the bit about the monarchy playing a balancing role that protects against political extremes

Really? when?

Well Gentleman perhaps your are feigning ignorance of modern British history and politics for effect. Perhaps just to continue an argument?

Either way I hope that it is just feigning..... 😕

Perhaps to end the argument you could provide an example where the queen has 'played a balancing role that protects against political extremes'?

I think THM means when Her Majesty told Thatcher "You can cut out all that extremist bollox love, I'm not having my kingdom ruined by those divisive policies" or words to that effect. Unfortunately Thatcher just ignored her and continued undeterred with her political extremism. Still, Her Majesty tried her best - so not really her fault.

One of the few times I can think of of the royals getting involved in extremist politics was the duke of windsor as a nazi sympathiser in WW2

teamhurtmore - I don't think they are feigning ignorance of modern British history and politics for effect. Put them right and tell them, won't you ?

I'm certainly not pretending. All i can think of them doing is chatting up the nazi's but that was before queenie.

They did also change their name to counter extremism. Gaw' bless 'em.

😆

Have you been away all weekend El-bent?

What has one's location got to do with this? Is this laffer curve related?

Thankfully the wall-to-wall sycophantic nonsense from almost all media outlets is almost all over and I've managed to avoid most of it.

This morning I was listening to the Today programme on the way to biking and there was a piece about the Queen's love of horse racing:

She is apparently an expert on horse racing, which is fair enough, and owns horses. Were she not 'regal', it was suggested that she may well have worked in horse breeding.

It was said that her ambition was,

"to breed a horse that was, "

wait for it....

"faster than everybody else's"

-Profound stuff indeed.

I got the impression that Evan Davis was as amused as I was 😉

ernie_lynch - Member
teamhurtmore - I don't think they are feigning ignorance of modern British history and politics for effect. Put them right and tell them, won't you ?

Ernie, one only has to compare the political and social stability in the UK throughout the twentieth century and possibly the 21st with the experiences in countries that abolished the monarchy. It doesn't take much thought or effort to find examples that lurched to the extreme left and others to the extreme right. Consider also those European countries who re-instated monarchies having endured extreme political regimes. It really isn't that hard.

The political landscape in the UK, in contrast has been remarkably stable to the extent that we/the media and the politically ignorant have to largely "invent" extremes as STW shows only too well even in the quotes above 😉

El-bent, nice try but remember who it is that goes on about Laffer Curves (hint, he has posted here but probably cant find the real economic framework that the gov is using to determine tax policy on Wiki so bores everyone about LCs instead).

Aristotle - so the answer from a RACE horse breeder to the question should presumably be to breed horses that are slower than everyone else's? Imagine the response to that

Thanks goodness I had a 5 hour ride instead!

Nice of the Red Arrows to give me a fly-past over the house on their way home from That London.

Watched (selectively) the show on iPlayer. Actually thought most of it was pretty good. Avoided Cliff Pilchard and Robbie Clunker Williams. Macca's voice is getting a bit past it, mind.

Heeeeeere's..... Grace!

Teamhurtmore you dont seem to realise that different countries have different politics. What has the queen actually done as unless we can see some way she's been responsible for stability how can we say she's been the cause?

I'm not sure that the monarchy can claim to be responsible for preventing a revolution in Britain. Monarchs didn't do much to prevent them in neighbouring countries. We Brits are a complex bunch who moan a lot, but don't often act upon it. The weather is poor all year-round too. Even when we go out and loot JD Sports en masse in our cities, we stop when it rains.

Of course a race horse breeder is trying to be faster than others. It goes without saying.... It is just another example of the [i]heart-warming, wonderful[/i] non-stories being spouted about the queen at the moment.

A-A, on the contrary I have accepted earlier that some of the benefits that can be attributed to a constitutional monarchy can be achieved elsewhere (in fact done that twice in this thread). I do not believe that the monarchy is perfect nor that it is the only system. However, I do believe that in general it does a pretty good job in the UK and, as its Head, the Queen has made an important contribution to our society that has been worth celebrating this weekend. I have also indicated where the opposite reaction has happened and that the modern invention of democracy is itself not without faults. Its almost incredible (in the true sense of the word) that after the struggle against apartheid for example that many SA have rejected the benefits of democracy so quickly.

Aristotle - Member
It is just another example of the heart-warming, wonderful non-stories being spouted about the queen at the moment.

It must have been a grueling weekend indeed. 😉

Edit: thm posted a reply whilst I typed to an earlier comment

The acceptance of monarchy may be linked with the seemingly British tendency to 'slag ourselves off' and to laugh/poke fun at/resist people who attempt things such as reform or forming extreme political movements(This may or may not have anything to do with our political stability)

Royalism/a mis-guided sense of pratriotism/wishing to maintain the status quo/having somebody "who are ours" to look upto or gossip about being the effect rather than the cause?

ernie_lynch - Member
teamhurtmore - I don't think they are feigning ignorance of modern British history and politics for effect. Put them right and tell them, won't you ?

Lifer - Member

Perhaps to end the argument you could provide an example where the queen has 'played a balancing role that protects against political extremes'?

So you have an answer / example ? or is it just the usual load of specious baloney?

Copies TJ's reply scurries back to the helmet debate...he would not have minded if i had said that to him I am sure 😕

THM - you made a claim, you have been asked to back it up

Hence we come back to the first important role of the constitutional monarch - the person with a social contract to protect against the tyranny of the majority and to respect the rights of the minority. .............. that the monarchy plays a very valuable role in restricting political extremes and protecting the interest of the minority.

so can you actually back this up please. Even a general example?

Junkyard - If I make a claim I am prepared to back it up.

Do you actually read threads before posting? C'mon you are just making yourself look a little silly now.

Yes I have read the thread. You have made this claim. You have been asked by several people to provide something to back it up. You seem unable to do so

I ask you again. Do you have anything to back up this claim that

the monarchy plays a very valuable role in restricting political extremes and protecting the interest of the minority.

Or are we to assume that actually it is not true.

Junkyard - If I make a claim I am prepared to back it up.

Do you actually read threads before posting? C'mon you are just making yourself look a little silly now.

well its funny cause you seem to read the posts and then answer with something you think is appropriate but in actual fact is just more of what caused the questions in the first place.

Clue - its on this page for starters. I thought you might just realise which two European examples I was referring to (sorry gave you too much credit perhaps?) and mentioned the third by name - Spain. The desperation is palpable. Anyway, the rains stopped the bunting is flapping, the Pimms etc cooled, time to stop being miserable and have the next Monarchists Jamboree. 😉 Enjoy the alternatives, whatever they are.

AA, you are just proving my point. Look at the specific answers to specific questions and as the Meerkats or the Opera guy says, go compare!

So - the answer is no - you don't have anything to back up the assertion

the monarchy plays a very valuable role in restricting political extremes and protecting the interest of the minority.

I thought not.

I thought you might just realise which two European examples I was referring to (sorry gave you too much credit perhaps?) and mentioned the third by name - Spain.

Perhaps you've given me too much credit too - I don't understand how Spain ties in with "modern British history and politics", can you explain it to me ?

And no, I'm really not "feigning ignorance", I am really that clueless concerning modern British history and politics. So please give examples of where the British Monarchy has 'protected against political extremes and the tyranny of the majority'.

Do you mean the Bedchamber Crisis as an example of this ?

Constitutional monarchies have proven themselves to be the MOST stable form of government.

A constitutional monarch provides an apolitical head of state, NO major european republic has been able to achieve the level of political stability that we have enjoyed in the UK for three hundred years. The proof of the system working is that we, apart from everyone else, have enjoyed this unprecedented advantage.

A President selected by parliament is nothing more than a puppet of the parliament and therefore useless, whereas a president elected by the people (the one most republicans want) is the worst kind of republic, it would turn a job which should be apolitical into a political position. The President would have a mandate to the people whom elected him/her, a mandate which may not correspond with the government.

I find it amazing that i am proving your point as I have no idea what your point is.

Has the usa not been quite stable? You can point to other countries till your blue in the face but you cannot tell me anything the the queen has done so all you have are some tenuous correlations.

Constitutional monarchies have proven themselves to be the MOST stable form of government.

Since the political reform of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has had 17 constitutions and charters.[22][23] Throughout this time, the form of government has ranged from military dictatorship to electoral democracy, but all governments have acknowledged a hereditary monarch as the head of state

Has the usa not been quite stable?

To be fair they did have quite a nasty civil war in the last 300 years which Z-11 refers to.

Although of course you only need to go back about another further 50 years and you'll find that the English did too. Which is presumably why Z-11 didn't want to go back that far.

Well, surely the English Civil War was when we certain sectors of the population decided to get rid of the monarchy, suceeded, we all found that despite what we'd been promised, it really didn't work that well at all, so went back to having a monarchy again, so its a rather poor example Ernie

As for the USA - I think you'll find that they were having some fairly big old disputes about just who ruled who out into the mid nineteenth century, remeber the Alamo and all that 😉

Regards good old stable France - would that be the same France that was ruled by Napoleon, and then a little soujourn into extremism with the Vichy government, with Petain being appointed as prime minister by Lebrun [b]prior[/b] to the armistice with Germany being signed?

The fact that the monarch has not had to intervene since 1707 proves that we got it pretty much right when we drew up the current constitutional settlement in 1689. you're asking THM to prove a negative, its the fact that, as an exception compared with all the other comparable nations, we've had this stability that proves his point.

Which other major European nation would you like to offer us as an example of long term political stability through the beauty of the republic?

Spain?
Italy?
Germany?
Russia?
Greece?

Of course, that oft ignored part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, has been politically very stable.