2015 UK General Election

[ReptilianPeon]

They didn't pray for it. They voted for it.

I know; I'm joking because my town had an "election night prayer" to pray that the best candidate got elected. I wrote about this in a topic I created.

[Pyrrho]

The monarchy have no powers of governance, the modern constitutional monarchy is a source of governance in tradition only and not in actual actual powers.

If only that were actually true:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/1...veto-bills

Not that I am a monarchist, but as a practical matter, how does the Queen's judgement compare with, say, the typical Prime Minister?

If her judgement is better, then it might be best to leave well enough alone.  If worse, then France showed you the way long ago.

[Iroscato]

If only that were actually true:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/1...veto-bills

Not that I am a monarchist, but as a practical matter, how does the Queen's judgement compare with, say, the typical Prime Minister?

If her judgement is better, then it might be best to leave well enough alone.  If worse, then France showed you the way long ago.

The first thing that springs to mind is 'potential senility'.
Aside from that, it doesn't necessarily matter about whether a person has good judgement. The whole idea of a democracy is the people electing people that they deem to have good judgement.
The case for a monarchy has become as weak and double-edged as the question of the existence of God.
If they have no power and are an ineffectual figurehead, then the postion has no reason whatsoever to exist.
If they do still retain decision-making power of any kind, what justification is there for that in a supposed democracy?

[robvalue]

All I ever hear is "good for tourism". I also hear that's a bit of a bogus argument, so I don't know what to make of that. I don't know the details. But really, what a sad state of affairs. A family becoming a reality show endorsed by the government.

It does make me uneasy knowing that technically the royals have not just power, but ultimate power. I dread to think what would happen should they actually try and use it.

I heard on the election bollocks about what would happen if Cameron came up one seat short on the required amount. They talked of him "going to the queen". That is startling, it seems to be saying she has the authority to overrule the parliamentary restriction.

I think England should make its mind up what the hell it is, and if it's not a theocracy then the royals should have no actual power. Being both at the same time appears to be working great for now. But just like the bible, having dangerous documentation lying around that can be harmful just by taking it seriously, when you'd actually have good reason to take it seriously, is a big risk.

[ReptilianPeon]

In regard to royal family I did watch this video by CGPGREY titled "The True Cost of the Royal Family":
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

[Minimalist]

The whole idea of a democracy is the people electing people that they deem to have good judgement.

Well I think that idea can be safely dismissed.

[Minimalist]

You reminded me of a quote I saw one time, Iro.  Took a while to find it.

Those who have been present at any deliberative assemblies of men will have observed how erroneous their opinions often are; and in fact, unless they are directed by superior men, they are apt to be contrary to all reason.



Niccolo Macchiavelli - Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livy  (1513)

502 years ago and he never saw the republicunt congressional delegation.

[Iroscato]

*Sigh* I know, I know. People are fucking idiots, and are wont to elect fucking idiots.
How long until we can just let the machines take care of us again?

[Saxmoof]

*Sigh* I know, I know. People are fucking idiots, and are wont to elect fucking idiots.
How long until we can just let the machines take care of us again?

Maybe over time democracies just naturally start to eat themselves as the politicians realise they can get a lot more success by trying to corner the stupid vote thus degrading the level of political debate to a farce

Seems like that's what has happened in America and we're heading the same way, how many more people would've voted Labour if Miliband had a strong jawline and a less nasal voice? How many people were duped into thinking UKIP are the party that will stand up for the working class because their leader pretends he's one of them?

[Tiberius]

Not that I am a monarchist, but as a practical matter, how does the Queen's judgement compare with, say, the typical Prime Minister?

If her judgement is better, then it might be best to leave well enough alone.  If worse, then France showed you the way long ago.

It could go one way or the other, but it's hardly the point. The fact is, people voted for politicians to make the decisions, not the Queen. It's not democratic at all if the ministers who were chosen by the people to make the decisions can get overruled by someone who wasn't voted for. At least in the American system, the person who has the power of veto (the President) is elected by the people, and even if the President does veto something, there are ways of overriding the veto itself.