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

They very kindly got back to me. The funding has been a one-off grant of £20k from the Persula Foundation. That is for consultant staff - tech, etc. They are not a charity as it is a short-term project.

DaisyAnne

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.

The breadth of Monarchy, charities don't benefit from royal patronage Giving Evidence Report. William is lazy and Charles the amount of free time Royals have to persue their own interests and passtimes is far more than the few engagements they all attend. There is a breakdown of how much free time they have on a thread on Twitter.

They use private jets, helicopters, train at a huge cost and a massive cost to the environment as well.

The cost has to be considered as its one of the most expensive compared to other monarchies The SG goes up never down.
Then there is money from the two duchies.

It's interesting to be talking about the monarchy constitution and the options. DaisyAnne

I think there will be more talk

Everything on Twitter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing
but the truth !

You have taken this off-thread twice Grany - not very polite. I asked GNHQ to change my original heading so we could continue with the discussion about Heads of State. I have gone out of my way to stop myself from saying "start another thread rather than eating this one." However, that is how I feel when you bring personal points about the RF up again.

I am not interested in throwing personal insults at the Royal Family. You might have noticed that The Commission on Political Power whose article you referred us to, didn't get into the finances of the RF either. Perhaps someone else will be. I would, and it seems others would be interested in discussing the position of our Monarchy in our democracy.

I'll leave this to others for the time being. I've tried, but I've had enough now.

The big stumbling block is how to balance "step in when needed to defend their countries constitution" with " no one in the royal family should involve themselves in politics " Defining the line between one and the other could keep constitutional lawyers busy for years.

Come to think of it, the legal experts and the justiciary are the best defenders of the constitution. It was Scottish judges who declared that Johnson was out of order in proroguing Parliament early as a device for stopping parliamentary discussion while the deadline ran out on the Brexit Bill that he wanted passed.

Elegran

The big stumbling block is how to balance "step in when needed to defend their countries constitution" with " no one in the royal family should involve themselves in politics " Defining the line between one and the other could keep constitutional lawyers busy for years.

Come to think of it, the legal experts and the justiciary are the best defenders of the constitution. It was Scottish judges who declared that Johnson was out of order in proroguing Parliament early as a device for stopping parliamentary discussion while the deadline ran out on the Brexit Bill that he wanted passed.

Defending their countries constitution is what Heads of State are supposed to do when a constitutional law has been broken. It's nothing to do with getting involved in politics as queen and Charles do by lobbying ministers for their own interests and queen's consent.

You make it sound as if it doesn't matter how anyone else behaves Grany. Those who have tried to undermine our democracy by using the power we passed over, were expected to act as responsible stewards when they accepted that role. They have not fulfilled this.

We may have to change the powers of the Head of State. However, we should tread carefully as those powers are very carefully balanced. There are areas of democracy that need changing first, starting with the voting system. No party should be able to have such a stranglehold on a government that means it can do whatever it likes, with parliament unable to call it to account.

The Good Law Project

Time to Stop the Rot

We need a written constitution this would stop those in parliment government breaking constitutional laws. DaisyAnne

goodlawproject.org/news/time-to-stop-the-rot/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Stoptherot070722&utm_medium=social%20media

Grany

The Good Law Project

Time to Stop the Rot

We need a written constitution this would stop those in parliment government breaking constitutional laws. DaisyAnne

goodlawproject.org/news/time-to-stop-the-rot/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Stoptherot070722&utm_medium=social%20media

It wouldn't stop them, though. If they could find the tiniest loophole in the wording of the constitution, they'd be through it like greased eels.

Grany

The Good Law Project

Time to Stop the Rot

We need a written constitution this would stop those in parliment government breaking constitutional laws. DaisyAnne

goodlawproject.org/news/time-to-stop-the-rot/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Stoptherot070722&utm_medium=social%20media

No, Grany, that is your opinion and The Good Law Project's, apparently, but it is not a fact.

I find it hard to imagine that we could achieve a written constitution in my lifetime, probably not in my ACs and possibly not in my GCs.

The problem is far more urgent than that and requires changes in today's arrangements. Those changes could be competed, as we have always done, individually and reasonably quickly. And yes, that is my opinion reached by reasoning, not rhetoric.

Really good laws are the ones which have been well considered and discussed before they are enacted, to cover all possible effects, intentional and unintentional, and how to deal with any unexpected effects, and which can be implemented and policed. If you can't implement a law, in practical terms it doesn't exist.

We need a new constitution

What we need most urgently is a new PM with a reasonable amount of competence, and a new Cabinet who do the jobs they are employed for, plus ordinary MPs with confidence in the ability and integrity of their leaders. Once we get those, we (and they) can start a long-term assessment and consideration of the constitution. If this crew bring in a bill to change the status quo it will end up a disaster making some people vastly rich and most greatly impoverished.

It won't be a quick project. There are many aspects to be considered, many viewpoints to hear, precedents and legalities to consult, surveys to plan, do, and analyse.

This is not the time to hammer on about the constitution. Park the thought until this specific mess is sorted out and we have a Government fit to undertake the work.

A piece of news which doesn't seem to have pierced many people's consciousness but Grany might think is a step on the way to achieving her objective:

Labour would abolish the House of Lords if elected to government.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/04/labour-would-scrap-house-of-lords-says-scottish-party-leader-anas-sarwar

The suggestions sound very interesting. I knew Brown was working on something but I didn't catch what.

I have been saying for years that we need to turn the HoP into a parliament for England and have the upper house as a revising house and a parliament for each and all the nations.

I can't see what they intend to do with the HoP. Worth watching. If Brown has put this together, he will have been very diligent.

I feel this is very off-track now to be honest.

I'm still hoping for a reply from you Grany to my question from Monday - 11-Jul-22 21:51:15
I feel that you are making statements but not really entering into conversation.

I think we need to do as Elegran suggests to be honest - sort out this specific mess first.

NotSpaghetti

I feel this is very off-track now to be honest.

I'm still hoping for a reply from you Grany to my question from Monday - 11-Jul-22 21:51:15
I feel that you are making statements but not really entering into conversation.

I think we need to do as Elegran suggests to be honest - sort out this specific mess first.

Well NotSpaghetti I think I made my views clear if you read through the posts. A president, a written constitution.

Thank you Grany. I did read the links but so much was raised in them I actually didn't really know what you were thinking.
Thanks for the clarification.

I don't think a written constitution is something we can do well enough, quickly enough. I am not hostile to it but we have to deal with the current mob first.
A president seems a mistake as it's putting power in the hands of one person.

The first thing we should do that will make a real difference is PR Andy Burnham said Labour should seize this moment opportunity.

A bill of rights is something the parties should consider, a written constitution

A responsible Government would respond with a process for a new British Bill of Rights. A smart Opposition would demand one.

The Commision on Political Power gave some interesting but limited options. Conversation discussion between Polly Toynbee and Alexandra Hall Hall. With Polly winning the argument worth seeing when it is on YouTube

A president would have limited power but would defend our constitution NotSpaghetti unlike the queen as Head of State The monarchy serves the politicians and the royals, not the people.

I'm not rooting for the monarch Grany just don't think a president is any kind of solution.

PR is a given for me. But not the half-baked version we rejected during the coalition government!

Well between a monarchy or a president what else is there to choose.

Changes we need as we consider what's next after queen.
A conference from Republic put on during the jubilee was informative
Representatives of Swedish and Duch monarchies spoke about their various campaigns that were having a positive effect.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mGUU7zyWa8&t=76s
Swedish and Dutch Monarchies will go

Alliance of European Republican Movements
The Alliance of European Republican Movements is a grouping of republican movements from across Europe. It was established in Stockholm in June 2010, after the wedding of Swedish Crown Princess Victoria and Daniel Westling.

Countries in the Caribbean have said they want to become republic also Australia New Zealand Canada are talking about this too.

The Commission on Political Power's paper options though limited were good and the talk between Polly and Alendra should be very informative and interesting to listen to when on YouTube.

So there are people that think changes are needed after queen goes there needs to be discussion and there is discussion taking place with the CPP paper. It's been said and thought that the reason queen staying on so long is Charles would not make a good king

Grany could you please highlight what are your own words and what are those you have copied form elsewhere without pointing that out - again!

The reason the Queen is still Queen is she would never consider abdicating , her father became king in the shadow of
his brother who had to leave the county

Grany, you seem to be throwing subjects at us, one after another, and then inundating the thread with unreferenced quotes. This form of posting makes a reasoned discussion very difficult.

The position of the Queen is one of your very strongly offered opinions. However, you are trying to compare a ceremonial Head of State - such as our Queen, to a political leader. A Head of State is someone who acts on behalf of a country (state) at the highest symbolic level. Do you know who the head of state for Germany, Canada or Israel is, for instance? Your comments about the Queen seem very confused and are therefore hard discuss.

Why not start single threads on each topic? It might then be possible for those interested in individual ones to find a way to discuss them with you.