Is corruption and incompetence the new normal?

This explanation might answer some of your questions MaizieD

An independent and neutral head of state
Even if an elected head of state has previously been a party politician they can still be independent and neutral (impartial) once in the job. The rules of the job would require them to be non-partisan and because their actions are open to scrutiny the public and politicians can judge whether those rules are being followed.

Britain already has plenty of examples of people in these kinds of positions, most notably the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Speaker is elected to parliament as a party MP, but once he or she is chosen as Speaker they remove themselves from party political debates and instead represent the whole of the Commons and act as referee in MPs' debates.

Candidates may be people with successful careers in law, business, foreign affairs, teaching, science, or someone who has made a name for themselves championing a popular cause or running a big charity. In a great country like ours, with over sixty million people, we'll be spoilt for choice.

The experience of other countries
Other countries have heads of state similar to the one Republic supports for Britain. Most notably is our nearest neighbour the Republic of Ireland. Ireland has elected a series of excellent presidents including Mary McAleese (so popular she was re-elected unopposed), Mary Robinson who went on to serve with the United Nations and Michael D Higgins.

Germany's head of state is elected by an assembly made up of national and regional politicians. In recent years two presidents have had to resign for either breaking the rules of the job or getting into political controversies. These resignations and the way in which the presidents were replaced show how robust the democratic alternative is. When an elected head of state gets it wrong they are held to account. If a royal gets it wrong it's either laughed off or excused without debate.

The Italian head of state has been central to holding the state together while Italy suffers political and economic crises. This is the role of referee in action, as the politicians argue about forming a new government the head of state can keep things together and provide continuity. In Britain if we faced a similar crisis we would have no-one but our MPs to look to, the Queen simply cannot play the same role as arbiter and referee (and made a point of refusing to get involved after the 2010 election when we were left with a hung parliament).

Not like the US or France: A very British head of state
Republic supports a non-partisan head of state who is not involved in making political decisions or running the government. So we don't support a system like they have in France or the United States. We believe the best alternative to the monarchy is a head of state who is able to do the job that the Queen cannot do. It is a serious job of representing the nation, acting as referee in the political process, championing the interests of the people and defending our democratic traditions.

someone independent of politicians who can act as an impartial referee of the political system.

I don't see how you achieve that. Everyone has a political viewpoint. I'm sure the Queen has one, even though it is never overtly expressed.

Where do you get your potential Presidential candidates from? Will they have had an active career as politicians? (After all, we really don't want to go down the talk show host route, do we?) Then you still have the problem of tribalism. How can you guarantee political neutrality?

Thank you Whitewavemark2

Grany

To solve all these problems and have an accountable government we need an elected Head I'd State
Do you agree?

The idea that the Queen can act as a check on politicians may be comforting, but it's a fantasy. The opposite is true - the monarchy gives huge power to politicians, while the Queen just does what she's told. That’s why republicans want a head of state who is both elected and effective, someone independent of politicians who can act as an impartial referee of the political system.

There is simply no constitutional mechanism by which the Queen could stop a potential dictator, other than by becoming one herself. The greatest safeguard against tyranny is a culture of active citizenship and a political system with clear rules based on equal rights, transparency and accountability – values to which monarchy is directly opposed.

Your argument is persuasive

To solve all these problems and have an accountable government we need an elected Head I'd State
Do you agree?

The idea that the Queen can act as a check on politicians may be comforting, but it's a fantasy. The opposite is true - the monarchy gives huge power to politicians, while the Queen just does what she's told. That’s why republicans want a head of state who is both elected and effective, someone independent of politicians who can act as an impartial referee of the political system.

There is simply no constitutional mechanism by which the Queen could stop a potential dictator, other than by becoming one herself. The greatest safeguard against tyranny is a culture of active citizenship and a political system with clear rules based on equal rights, transparency and accountability – values to which monarchy is directly opposed.

Editorial in Times relating to yet another Tory who is hoping to get away with rape

Or even longer.

The answer to your question whitewave is yes. But I will add that I don’t think it’s new. It’s been going on for a good while, maybe always, I don’t know. But I do think things have got worse in the last twenty years or so.

My DH is on our local Parish Council and if he, or his fellow councillors behaved as the current cabinet have they would be removed from office and quite possibly prosecuted. All public spending has to be done properly and proper bid evaluation has to be undertaken. If the PC awarded the contract for grass cutting to another member's son, they would rightly be called to account and likely de-selected at the next election, so why is this corrupt, venal crew getting away with it? Does nobody care that they are awarding contracts to their buddies? Buddies who are often not even qualified to undertake the contract?

It can't be right that the Queen head of state is there for no reason other than do the PM's bidding.

Ministers can do almost anything they like – including taking away our rights and liberties – safe in the knowledge that there is no final check on their power.

Unlike with an elected Head of State

She went along with it because as a constitutional monarch, her powers are severely limited by our unwritten constitution.

It was only later that the illegality was proven by the Supreme Court. By now, HM must be in no doubt that her PM is a cheat and a liar, and I hope she treats anything he says with the contempt it deserves.

Yes but she went along with it didn't she? Then, was found out it was unlawful

Normally the PM does get invited for a weekend at Balmoral.

Whether or not that happens, I would guess that HM will not believe a word that Johnson says. She has experience of being lied to by him when he illegally prorogued Parliament.

No sorry queen now at Balmoral because of Covid19

Good topic

What does Queen say Johnson weekly meetings Does she say you are doing a good job

Whitewavemark2

quizqueen

I don't think there is much to chose between all the political parties for incompetence and dishonesty, in my opinion.

Then you are not paying attention

Exactly.

The corrosive influence of big money continues to undermine the integrity of the UK’s political system.

Big money:

-is openly solicited in return for political access and influence;
-can secure positions of public office and titles of recognition;
-exposes our democracy to manipulation by outside interests;
-casts doubt on whether public officials are acting in the public interest.

To remain relevant in a rapidly changing and uncertain world, UK political parties and politicians need to win back the trust of citizens. Dealing with the perception and reality of the corrupting influence of money on UK politics is a crucial part of that picture.

Without essential reforms, a steady stream of political corruption scandals will continue to unfold.

www.transparency.org.uk/corruption-and-uk/Money%20and%20Politics

MaizieD

^I wish that the 3.5% (or even 2.5%) theory was true.^

It has to be a sustained campaign, varian, not signing a petition or strolling through London en masse a couple of times.

I think the continual appearance of the numbers 3.5% all over the place could have an unsettling effect... just keep a bit of chalk handy

I can do chalk!!

That’s all most of us on here are up to.

We could do our bit on social media though!

GrannyGravy13

The army gave been used since day one of Covid-19, they supply transportation, man testing stations and the army nurses and doctors have been working in our hospitals.

They are not being used to 'control' civil unrest, GG13.

We expect 'our lads' to be deployed to help with civilian emergencies. Not a problem.

I think what the government has in mind is slightly less wholesome...

I wish that the 3.5% (or even 2.5%) theory was true.

It has to be a sustained campaign, varian, not signing a petition or strolling through London en masse a couple of times.

I think the continual appearance of the numbers 3.5% all over the place could have an unsettling effect... just keep a bit of chalk handy

The army gave been used since day one of Covid-19, they supply transportation, man testing stations and the army nurses and doctors have been working in our hospitals.

I heard rumours that the army weren't too reluctant during the miners' strike... (though it was never confirmed, there were strong suspicions that the large numbers of police were augmented with soldiers...)

Of course, by bussing in police from other parts of the country the Thatcher government forestalled any 'sympathetic' police action... local police weren't quite so keen to beat up their miner relatives as the southern reinforcements were...

I wish that the 3.5% (or even 2.5%) theory was true.

Remember that more than 6,000,000 people (more than 10% of the UK adult population) signed the petition to Revoke Article 50.

He'll follow Churchills lead and lock up local soldiers in the barracks in case they feel compelled to fight FOR the cause their families and friends are fighting for rather than Bojo's side .

Although I think Johnson is preparing to use the army. I’m not sure how the ordinary soldier will feel about that.