Woke up this morning ... morphing to discussion on Heads of State.

^ Monarchy has given all power to the PM and government^

That was exactly my point, Grany. The political history of the past almost 400 years has been about the transfer of power from the Crown to Parliament. The party which forms a government has been elected by citizens of this country. So your article writer is incorrect when they say that parliament is 'ruling over us' and that it is not 'working for the people'. Because MPs are elected 'by the people' to represent them in parliament. They are chosen (in theory) on the policies laid out in their manifesto, their election implies that those policies are what 'the people' want them to do. How is that 'not working for the people'?

There are enormous holes in the parliamentary system, but the monarch, which has transferred power to Parliament and so to the elected Executive, cannot be blamed for shortcomings of the Executive.

Grany

Thank you for taking the time to explain your views MaizieD yes it is indeed a complex area

Grany, I actually think that Maizie was explaining the facts rather than offering her views.

Grany

Thank you for taking the time to explain your views MaizieD yes it is indeed a complex area

My view is that they were mainly facts not "views", Grany.

Sorry NotSpaghetti. I didn't see your post before I finally pressed send.

Grany

Queen as Head of State could have stopped Johnson much earlier on in his premiership but she is only able to do as the PM asks her to do. Monarchy has given all power to the PM and government She does not involve herself in our constitution. She is powerless. What is the point of monarchy?

I do despair sometimes.

Well the chaos that is johnsons government the law breaking the lies a Head of State could not stop this? Well presidents in other countries do. An effective Head of State could have stepped in and told Johnson he should resign. But our queen cannot do this she can only do as the PM asks remember the proroging of parliment she yes to the PM.

We have a pointless and powerless Head of State

You should be asking yourselves what does monarchy actually do?

MaizieD

^ Monarchy has given all power to the PM and government^

That was exactly my point, Grany. The political history of the past almost 400 years has been about the transfer of power from the Crown to Parliament. The party which forms a government has been elected by citizens of this country. So your article writer is incorrect when they say that parliament is 'ruling over us' and that it is not 'working for the people'. Because MPs are elected 'by the people' to represent them in parliament. They are chosen (in theory) on the policies laid out in their manifesto, their election implies that those policies are what 'the people' want them to do. How is that 'not working for the people'?

There are enormous holes in the parliamentary system, but the monarch, which has transferred power to Parliament and so to the elected Executive, cannot be blamed for shortcomings of the Executive.

Yes understand what you are saying MaizieD

Well this system of government is wrong then as Monarchy has transferred all powers means she has no role as a Head of State to step in to defend our constitution as other presidents do when PM are breaking the constitutional laws.

Grany not a lot. Just thinking what does a Queen bee actually do? Keeps the worker bees busy and lays lots of eggs, but at the same time is controlled by the worker bees.

I can’t see Johnson being any danger except maybe to Rishi Sunak? Don’t forget Parliament is in recess throughout August and a new leader should be elected or about to be when it returns. That’s if the contenders haven’t destroyed each other by then! The gloves are off and the media are revelling in the murk.

DaisyAnne

Sorry NotSpaghetti. I didn't see your post before I finally pressed send.

No need to apologise - having just seen people commenting on the difference between “facts” and “views” I expect we both did massive eye-rolls!

It will go on being irritating I feel.
And the phrase “alternative facts” drives me bonkers!
????.

25Avalon

Grany not a lot. Just thinking what does a Queen bee actually do? Keeps the worker bees busy and lays lots of eggs, but at the same time is controlled by the worker bees.

I can’t see Johnson being any danger except maybe to Rishi Sunak? Don’t forget Parliament is in recess throughout August and a new leader should be elected or about to be when it returns. That’s if the contenders haven’t destroyed each other by then! The gloves are off and the media are revelling in the murk.

Well the queen bee hasn't laid many eggs except four but one or more of them are rotten so not very industrious ?

Well this system of government is wrong then as Monarchy has transferred all powers means she has no role as a Head of State to step in to defend our constitution as other presidents do when PM are breaking the constitutional laws.

So, basically, Grany, you are looking for a Presidential system of government? Monarchical power transferred t a president?

After all, you're clearly not very happy about the monarch's 'power' being transferred to 'the people' via Parliament..

Yes a president a parliamentary republic

we can’t hold the Queen and her family to account at the ballot box, there’s nothing to stop them abusing their privilege, misusing their influence or simply wasting our money.

A non-partisan head of state who is not involved in making political decisions or running the government. So not like the system that they have in France or the United States.

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.

The great thing about an elected head of state is that their actions, behaviour and public spending are all open to proper scrutiny, and if they do something wrong they can be sacked. So unlike Prince Charles, who ignores the unwritten rule that he shouldn't become political, in a republic the head of state could be challenged if they did step out of line.

Grany

Well the chaos that is johnsons government the law breaking the lies a Head of State could not stop this? Well presidents in other countries do. An effective Head of State could have stepped in and told Johnson he should resign. But our queen cannot do this she can only do as the PM asks remember the proroging of parliment she yes to the PM.

We have a pointless and powerless Head of State

You should be asking yourselves what does monarchy actually do?

Which Presidents and what countries, Grany? A couple of examples would let us know where you are going with this.

Grany, you are quoting from elsewhere again and neither putting it in "quotes" or italics. You should also flag up the source as in [source: DaisyAnne] or put a link to the document or find some way of your own to let us know.

So unlike Prince Charles, who ignores the unwritten rule that he shouldn't become political, in a republic the head of state could be challenged if they did step out of line.

Prince Charles is not the Head of State so not bound by the rules applicable to that role. The person who wrote that piece seems to have little knowledge and a great deal of bias.

Where, and in which country, does the Head of State act as referee in the political process, ...? In our country, the constitution does that and Maizie has explained how each part of the mechanism of state plays its part. After Johnson's attack on the Constitution, we could well decide to make changes, as we always have done with this oldest of political systems. The Monarch is an easy target but in this instance, she is the wrong one.

Copied From
Commission on political power

Over the last thousand years or so the monarchy – as head of state – has represented an evolved and evolving institution. The question we face today is: what is the best structure for the country of the future?

The Commission on Political Power was established to look at how our democratic systems are functioning and to formulate ideas for how we could develop. The Commission is building on academic and policy work by a wide range of experts and organisations.

It is clear that the head of state is imminently going to go through a period of change and it is our contention that the country should not slide unthinkingly into that transition, but should consider what choices are realistically available and what the implications are for each of them.

This options paper sets out, briefly, several scenarios for discussion and consultation, on the role of the head of state within the UK’s constitution and Parliamentary democracy.

The central issue it seeks to investigate is the ‘grey’ area in Britain’s political settlement when it comes to the role of the head of state. In other political systems, the role of the head of state comes with clearly-defined powers which are exercised explicitly to act as a check on the executive. This is not the case in the UK.

In the UK, the role of the head of state is occupied by an hereditary monarch premised on the principle of primogeniture. Theoretically, the head of state possesses a number of prerogative powers which act as a check on the executive branch of our political system – specifically the prime minister who heads an elected government. Practically, however, these royal prerogative powers are not used – which leaves a vacuum on any constriction of executive power.

Under the reign of the UK’s current head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, a constitutional principle has been established that these powers will not be used – not least because, as an hereditary position, there is no inherent elected legitimacy associated with the role. As such, if the UK’s current – or any future – monarch did choose to exercise these hard powers, or soft influence, a constitutional crisis of sorts may be triggered. There is thus no check on the executive from the head of state.

Added to this, in the UK’s Parliamentary system, the legislative branch is not able to serve as a truly independent check against an overreaching executive either since, by definition, the executive’s very existence is contingent on it commanding a majority in the legislature – Parliament. Nor is there an option such as exists in many other democracies for the UK’s judicial branch to fulfil that function through means of a constitutional court, as the UK does not have a formal written constitution and rather relies heavily on certain unwritten conventions and norms which have evolved over time. The tradition that Parliament is sovereign means that it can also overturn any ruling from the courts that it dislikes by passing new laws.

The non-exercise of the head of state’s prerogative powers, combined with the lack of sufficient checks and balances from other institutions, therefore means that there is a gap when it comes to having a check on the executive in the British political system.

So what are you thinking, Grany?

Here's the link to the Commission on Political Power's paper where the options (as they see it) are laid out:
Options Paper: Head of State

commissionpoliticalpower.uk/publications/headofstateoptionspaper

Tomorrow there's an online event, on the future of the monarchy, featuring
@pollytoynbee
and
@alexhallhall
It will be looking at this 'options paper', commissionpoliticalpower.uk/publications/headofstateoptionspaper… although the options are somewhat limited. It looks like an interesting project.

DaisyAnne

Grany

Well the chaos that is johnsons government the law breaking the lies a Head of State could not stop this? Well presidents in other countries do. An effective Head of State could have stepped in and told Johnson he should resign. But our queen cannot do this she can only do as the PM asks remember the proroging of parliment she yes to the PM.

We have a pointless and powerless Head of State

You should be asking yourselves what does monarchy actually do?

Which Presidents and what countries, Grany? A couple of examples would let us know where you are going with this.

Well all democratic countries that have Heads of State who will step in when needed to defend their countries constitution

Here are a few DaisyAnne

A few well respected good presidents

Mary McAleese, Irish president from 1997 to 2011. She was the second woman to serve as president and the first president from the north of Ireland. She was hugely popular before and since.

Joachim Gauck, German president from 2012 to 2017. He was a leading pro-democracy campaigner in East Germany, before serving as the first Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records.

Tarja Halonen, the first woman to be elected president of Finland, serving from 2000-2012. She was hugely popular while in office and since.

Mary Robinson, the first woman to be elected president of Ireland, serving from 1990 to 1997, before going on to be the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, the first woman head of state ever elected to the post. She was Iceland's president from 1980 to 1996. She was hugely popular while in office and since

And no one in the royal family should involve themselves in politics as the queen and Charles both do.

www.instagram.com/p/CevqvqGsbFV/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Has anyone found who funds the Commission on Political Power. They don't seem to want to tell us although it's and interesting line up of Commissioners.

commissionpoliticalpower.uk/publications/headofstateoptionspaper

Thank you for your link Grany. For some reason it didn't work for me. I think it's because you put ... on the end without a space.

The Irish president get paid £4 million. Our RF if interested costs £345 million

I looked for that too, DaisyAnne and thought the same.

Thank you Granny for listing those you feel have more power than our Head of State.

This, if you scroll down to "The functions and powers of the President" shows those functions where the Irish President is concerned. Which of them does this Head of State have that our Head of State doesn't?

This would help clarify what changes you think are actually missing and those that are needed.

This, if you scroll down to "The functions and powers of the President" shows those functions where the Irish President is concerned. Which of them does this Head of State have that our Head of State doesn't?

The one that struck me immediately was the power to refer Bills to the Supreme Court to adjudicate on their conformity to the Constitution. It looks useful.

Grany

The Irish president get paid £4 million. Our RF if interested costs £345 million

You seem to be comparing apples with pears Grany. There is no comparison between the breadth of the role of "Monarch" and that of "Irish President".

There may be some arguments about the cost. However, this one does not hold water. I think you are distracting from what your original argument appeared to be by introducing cost at this point. You need to decide if that is your first argument or if democratic growth is.

We have always needed and had progress; in our democracy and the role of the Head of State. However, if you want others to accept your argument, they have to be able to understand it - it needs to be explicit. They also have to be able to see the truth behind it.

The Commission on Political Power may be one way of doing that. It could be worth watching the Webinar. You can registar to join it zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vmQu6JUqRPqZTrsZgC1CGA As you can see it is taking place on Zoom. The idea seems like a step towards Citizens Juries, which I for one (and Rory Stewart for another ) are greatly in favour of.

I have also emailed the Commission on Political Power to see if they will tell us how they are funded.