Watching the US Inauguration

Lucca

??

Have you not seen the pictures of him sitting huddled in his chair, well dressed up for the cold, with a pair of fancy knitted mittens on? They're all over social media. He almost upstaged the President!

No one puts Bernie in a corner! People are cutting and pasting him into photos. He was dressed for the ski resort.

Bernie had a great sense of humor about all this. Most men wore suits and ties with an overcoat. He wore mittens made by a teacher from recyclable materials. He came in carrying an envelope as if he was going to run errands after. You can’t help but like him.

MaizieD

Lucca

??

Have you not seen the pictures of him sitting huddled in his chair, well dressed up for the cold, with a pair of fancy knitted mittens on? They're all over social media. He almost upstaged the President!

Ah thanks !

He looks a bit pink and I haven't got any yarn left of that colour, but he does look very sweet.

Yes inspiring We should have our own democratically Elected President.

I think lots of people like Bernie he very nearly became president.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSQyDNN4BYg&t=100s

Grany

Yes inspiring We should have our own democratically Elected President.

I think lots of people like Bernie he very nearly became president.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSQyDNN4BYg&t=100s

Look what the US got in 2016 /17 Grany and ask yourself that question again

Yes but their working democracy got rid of him. We cannot get rid of the Queen and family, we are stuck with them, without democratic election.

We’ve got Johnson so already in the s...t

But .... HM hasn't the power to change the laws on a whim.

I'll stick with what I've got, thanks.
I might crochet myself a Bernie though

If we had a President it would change our whole system. We have just tried that from another angle and look how poorly that is going.

Our head of state has no say in the governing of the country. Her most "political" act is to summon the leader of the party with most support from the electorate and ask them to form a government for her. That leader (elected to Parliament by the voters, and the Prime or First among the ministers of state) chooses people to assist him from among those elected by the voters The sovereign does, however, have continuous experience of discussing the country's affairs at regular weekly meetings with a succession of Prime Ministers of whatever party and policy the voters have put into power, and can talk about past decisions and reasons for them to the current PM - though there is no obligation to follow any advice that is given. The head of state does not hire or fire anyone unless there has been a general election, or a ruling party has faced such opposition that they feel unable to continue in power.

Grany

Yes but their working democracy got rid of him. We cannot get rid of the Queen and family, we are stuck with them, without democratic election.

Yes, but only just. They were tottering on a knife edge on 6th January. Had things gone slightly differently, had the mob managed to get hold of some senators, and, heaven forbid, actually killed one or more (they were fired up to do it, they murdered one of the Capitol guards) and Trump imposed martial law, which was within his powers to do, there might have been a quite different outcome. I think that the US only escaped because Trump's actions, and the violence of his mob, shocked some of the GOP into seeing sense and abandoning him.

I think the 'constitution' only just made it...

And whether his impeachment is successful seems to be also far from a foregone conclusion.

In contrast, the Head of State in the USA, the President, is elected on his/her personal charisma and on his/her ability and money to put on has a show that persuades the voters that he or she is the one to lead them, but they may not have enough of a majority of support from the elected representatives of the people to actually get their promised reforms through. The leader of their party is most probably someone else entirely.

Their hands may be completely tied in dealing with the rest of the government machine. However they have a LOT of direct say, to the point of sole power in places. They appoint and hire and fire many high officers, and they put out executive decisions under their own signature without reference to anyone else, they award pardons on completely their own initiative, without consultation with anyone else (including to people who break the law on the instructions of the President himself).

If we were to go the elected president route, there would be many things that we could learn from countries which have a president.

We could also learn much from those whose monarchs have taken even more of a step back than our most recent ones have. Why did countries like, say, the Netherlands, keep the institution of the continuous monarchy instead of going right over to electing a new president by popular acclaim every few years? Was it because they saw the danger of creeping "celebrity" populism overtaking the sober appreciation of worth and experience?

It is one thing to be inspired by a good result, another to make sure that is what you always get.

Our elected head of state won't be like the USA It will be Head of State as what we have only done better.

Some say American should have a 'democracy' like we have this is what would happen if it did happen ha

Graham Smith

m.youtube.com/watch?v=201SCR5yY3o

There are more ways to have a head of state than either a US-style President or a UK-style monarchy. The main thing is a split between head of state and elected political and legal power.

Whatever you have, you have to think carefully about what "checks and balances" are in place to prevent any single person from having too much influence. That is particularly true of their own employment position, or they could change the law to get permanent power, and whatever the head of state was called, we'd end up with the equivalent of the old-fashioned style of absolute monarch, with total power and no way to get rid of them except assassination.

we'd end up with the equivalent of the old-fashioned style of absolute monarch, with total power and no way to get rid of them except assassination.

Or a Civil War, like in 1645...

or they could change the law to get permanent power,

That is what is worrying me very deeply about our present government. Parliament is supposed to be Sovereign, but with a huge majority of MPs who don't seem to understand what their function is under our constitution, i.e to scrutinise and amend legislation proposed by the Executive, the Executive is taking more and more powers to itself by its apparently quite legitimate power to set the Parliamentary agenda. By hugely cutting the time that all MPs have to examine and debate bills MPs have nodded through quite extraordinary powers for Ministers to amend legislation by statutory instrument. So ministers can alter the law in any way they want to with minimal scrutiny. MPs are handing the formerly supreme power of the Legislature, which has been achieved over the past 400 years, back to the Executive. And they're even passing their own laws to do it!

So now the Executive can say "Parliament has the supreme power to make the law, but they've used that power to legislate to hand it all back to us. It's abominable.

Of course, they depend so much of the ignorance of the wider populace as to how our constitution should work.

When May was having so much trouble getting legislation through parliament and the Leavers were screaming that 'the will of the people' was being subverted because the government weren't being allowed to 'rule', they refused to understand that the government 'rules' with the consent of Parliament (that is, the entire body of MPs, of all parties). They can only implement legislation if Parliament agrees to it. That's what Parliamentary Sovereignty is.

And quite honestly, I find all this stuff about the iniquity of having a Monarchy to be quite irrelevant.

Our Head of State, no matter what form it takes, has no power to amend or alter the will of Parliament. To give them that power would seem to be laying the legislature open to political manipulation. Even more scary than the current Executive power grab.

Indeed. there are so many people who don't know about the "balance of power" and how it is achieved in the UK, between the Queen as Head of State, the Prime Minister, the cabinet members and ministers with their responsibilities for various departments of government, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Civil Srervice and their detailed and comprehensive knowledge and experience of the nuts and bolts of actually achieving the grandiose aims and the electorate. Any change alters that balance of power, most likely for the worse. It is very unlikely to change anything for the better.

Don't forget the Judiciary, Elegran.

The independent judiciary, not politically appointed whose job it is to interpret the law made by Parliament Also demonised for doing their job.

And the observance of the Rule of Law. A point totally alien to our government.

Are you as worried as I am?

Yes, MaizieD

An independent judiciary is essential to a democracy, to remind everyone (loudly and clearly) from time to time that no-one is above the law. I was really cheered when the Scottish judiciary put their foot down over the proroguing of Parliament at a moment when they really needed to stay at their post. The eventual outcome was the same, but they made a stand over the supremacy of Parliament. I hope the whole UK judiciary stays independent and above politics.

So it shows how useless monarchy is just went along with what Johnson asked her to, proroguing parliment, even though he was breaking the law. A properly functioning HoS would have stopped this happening. Would step in checks and balances. Monarchy is broke, it can't be fixed it's not fit for purpose. You see monarchy gives PM government too much power and the Queen does not want to have anything to do with our constitution though she gets paid for this just takes the money and all that goes with it.

Grany

So it shows how useless monarchy is just went along with what Johnson asked her to, proroguing parliment, even though he was breaking the law. A properly functioning HoS would have stopped this happening. Would step in checks and balances. Monarchy is broke, it can't be fixed it's not fit for purpose. You see monarchy gives PM government too much power and the Queen does not want to have anything to do with our constitution though she gets paid for this just takes the money and all that goes with it.

I honestly don't think that you've listened to a word that Elegran and I have said about our constitution, Grany.

It is the job of the legal profession to point it out if what is proposed is against the law.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, the head of state proposed to block the due legal process of handing over power to his democratically elected successor. Two cases in two countries that show how the checks and balances that have evolved do work, and how careful we have to be that any changes are not carried out either behind our backs or on a wave of unconsidered annoyance about a single crisis.