Watching the US Inauguration

One trouble with Trump's presidency was that he wasn't symbolic, nor neutral to the opposing parties.

Great story Maizie. Well done that lady.

but too

News of the Bernie Sanders crochet doll.

The lady who made it sold it on ebay for 20,000 dollars and gave the money to charity.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/27/bernie-sanders-meme-crochet-doll-

Over time, starting with Magna Carta, powers have been taken away from the monarchy because they abused them. We even chopped off one king’s head and later on there were many revolutions in Europe which saw the end of many monarchies. We only have a monarchy precisely because powers were taken away from them so they are largely symbolic. It can in no way be compared with the American system. What we desperately need is reform of the House of Lords which is undemocratic.

Republic Elegran

www.republic.org.uk/what_we_want

Where is that quote from, Grany?

When prime minister Boris Johnson asked the Queen to prorogue parliament (suspend it for a few weeks) it was clear that the Queen has no independent role to play. For the first time the Queen's real job, which is to do what the PM tells her, was highlighted on prime time TV. Whatever you think about Brexit, it can't be right that the head of state is there for no reason other than do the PM's bidding.

The phrase “ceremonial head of state” is misleading. It suggests that the role is purely for decoration, when it is actually a crucial part of the political system.

Because an elected head of state's neutrality is prescribed by law, they can be genuinely independent of government, acting as an impartial referee of the political system and an extra check on the power of government.

If there's a risk that a new law may breach fundamental rights or principles, for example, a head of state may refer it to the Supreme Court. Or if there is widespread public opposition to a bill, the president may consult the people in a referendum. These powers are rarely used, but vitally important in a democracy.

Aside from these formal functions, a president represents their country on the world stage and takes a leading role at times of national celebration, uncertainty or tragedy. In carrying out these parts of the job, an elected head of state knows they will be held to account for their words and actions, providing a strong incentive to be unifying and inclusive.

If a president attempts to overreach their powers, there's a clear process for removing them from office - unlike a monarch. And a president is paid a straightforward annual salary, usually with a small office and one official residence; the public is not expected to fund their extended family or maintain multiple homes.

Republic calls for a constitutional head of state

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, MaizieD

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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