Up vanity, down royal state

[yamangman]

You might have heard the accusations levelled at some wally in that family that somehow still serve as head of state. Whether or not they are true, the man is still disgusting. Why do we suffer them? How could the French have gotten it so right and we so wrong? The idea that these people and their progeny will be paid de facto by the masses seems incomprehensibly twisted.

I think the time is good to realise Henry's misgivings about his son as successor were right, except of course it is the nobility that perfectly encapsulates his ruffians and apes of idleness.

[Andy3536]

French got it so right? Because if there's one thing we've not seen it's French presidents that were corrupt

What next Italy?

[yamangman]

Well, nothing is perfect. When it comes to the appraisal of the almighty head of government grader I think we'll be marked a firm 'must try harder'. At least the French and Italians can get a democratic word in edgeways, would you rather not have that? I can't be alone in being galled by having to pay these cretins without any democratic say.

[SeriousSam]

Setting aside the argument about the end result, it is pretty clear that the French got it spectacularly wrong. Whilst they may celebrate Bastille day there is still a deeply ingrained sense of national shame in terms of what came afterwards. The purges didn't just "clear out" royalty, but also some of Frances finest minds, e.g. Antoine Lavoisier.

Personally I'd rather have a figurehead as head of state rather than a President, mostly because it adds a sense of continuity and link to our history. In time that will change and we will move on, but these things are best done gradually, evolving at a manageable pace. My only real issue is that the Queen is both head of state and church, as organised religion is a disruption to the democratic process when ingrained at that level. However, that too will most likely change in time so I see no point in getting riled up about it.

Finally it is also worth making the point that like her or not the Queen sees her role as a duty to serve the nation, something very few presidents have by the nature of how they have to fight to get there.

[Andy3536]

Well, nothing is perfect. When it comes to the appraisal of the almighty head of government grader I think we'll be marked a firm 'must try harder'. At least the French and Italians can get a democratic word in edgeways, would you rather not have that? I can't be alone in being galled by having to pay these cretins without any democratic say.

TBH, they have no say in how the country is run. When you work out how much it costs to 'run' the Royal family per tax payer. It's tiny. It really doesn't matter.
I'm more annoyed that the suposedly democratically elected government we have won't give us a democratic say on whether we should be part of a federal Europe.

[peterb]

Personally, I'd rather have the politically neutral Monarchy rather than another self-serving politician as President.

Berlesconi, Sarkosy, Bush Jnr, Nixon, etc etc; hardly awesome figures.

[wasabi]

Interesting psychological trait of the human race is we still seem to want some kind of single patriarchal/matriarchal figurehead to 'lead' us. Throwback to generally alpha-male leader of the hunter-gatherer group?

I'd get rid of the monarchy. And bring in a House-of-Lords replacement with teeth, voted in by a variation on PR to balance out the Commons.

[SeriousSam]

Interesting psychological trait of the human race is we still seem to want some kind of single patriarchal/matriarchal figurehead to 'lead' us. Throwback to generally alpha-male leader of the hunter-gatherer group?

I'd get rid of the monarchy. And bring in a House-of-Lords replacement with teeth, voted in by a variation on PR to balance out the Commons.

It isn't "lead" but act as a frame of constant reference to history in a rapidly changing world. The Queen has no real say in how the country is run, other than privately expressing a degree of displeasure. As for a democratically elected House of Lords, that at present would be a disaster of epic proportions. Not because it isn't a good idea, but because the majority of people in the country are far too easily manipulated. You only have to look across the water to the mess the Americans are in with a similar set-up to realise that we are not yet ready for it. It does require change but for now minimising political appointments and phasing out the clergy would be the place to start.

[BobF64]

If we ever cease to be a monarchy, it would be far better to merge the "head of state" into the office of the First Lord of the Treasury.

Having some elected chump to serve as a titular figurehead is an utter waste, unless its an unpaid voluntary role.

[wasabi]

s for a democratically elected House of Lords, that at present would be a disaster of epic proportions. Not because it isn't a good idea, but because the majority of people in the country are far too easily manipulated. You only have to look across the water to the mess the Americans are in with a similar set-up to realise that we are not yet ready for it. It does require change but for now minimising political appointments and phasing out the clergy would be the place to start.

Again - we need an IQ qualification to vote. I still don't see why we let those of under average intelligence make a choice that is simply too complex for them.

i.e. Want to vote? Do an IQ test.

[Galant]

Again - we need an IQ qualification to vote. I still don't see why we let those of under average intelligence make a choice that is simply too complex for them.

i.e. Want to vote? Do an IQ test.

Because voting isn't purely about intellect, it's about being recognised as an individual human being with an inherent right to a voice.

Additionally, one might ask who it is that gets to set the IQ level? Also, what if people with high IQs vote differently?

Intellect isn't the be all and end all.

[SeriousSam]

Considering that Democracy could be argued as a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is easy to see why setting an "achievement bar" to gain voting rights may be attractive. However, any objective measure is doomed to fail due to the simple fact that irrational stupidity is by it's very nature universal, even among those of high IQ. Furthermore everyone can be manipulated using modern media tools, due to inbuilt natural and experiential bias. Immigration being an obvious example at the moment.

Look at this way. To any rational person there is only one factor that should impinge on your choice, and that is "who will have the least negative impact on the economy". We live in a market driven democracy, so our combined survival is directly linked to the UK remaining relatively prosperous. However, even using that metric on it's own people will still vote for one of the 3 main parties. Essentially because you then run into a knowledge and understanding gap.

Of course you can argue that surviving is pointless if we are all miserable, but then you get into the philosophical debate about whether the nature of the modern world is intrinsically linked to the increasing rise of unhappiness. Personally I don't think it helps but ultimately we are at fault for seeking illusionary certainty. Rather than accepting uncertainty for what it is and emotionally evolving to the point where it no longer has a hold over us.

[peterb]

Except that in a representative democracy, the vote is (in theory) for the person who will represent your constituency (and its residents) - which is why some exceptional constituency MPs are elected against predictions or a large swing against their party.

Of course, in practice that does not occur, and again, in practice, the result of most elections is decided by relatively few voters in key marginal constituencies.

"The Public Philosopher" on R4's 'Today' programme had an interesting discussion about elections and democracy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02h91r3

[wasabi]

However, any objective measure is doomed to fail due to the simple fact that irrational stupidity is by it's very nature universal, even among those of high IQ.

Sure, clever people can also be irrational, but at least there is a chance they might understand the concepts. Those of below average IQ simply are of below average IQ. They never will understand and simply vote on what trendy types call EQ. Above average IQ people might make informed decisions some of the time - not saying they will, but they at least are theoretically capable.

Furthermore everyone can be manipulated using modern media tools, due to inbuilt natural and experiential bias. Immigration being an obvious example at the moment.

Everyone? So you have to say then NOBODY gets to make the decisions because they might have been media brainwashed? I agree the media is powerful, the level of pro-immigration retardedness due to BBC propaganda being an example. Doesn't influence everyone all the time though surely?

Look at this way. To any rational person there is only one factor that should impinge on your choice, and that is "who will have the least negative impact on the economy". We live in a market driven democracy, so our combined survival is directly linked to the UK remaining relatively prosperous. However, even using that metric on it's own people will still vote for one of the 3 main parties. Essentially because you then run into a knowledge and understanding gap.

Of course you can argue that surviving is pointless if we are all miserable, but then you get into the philosophical debate about whether the nature of the modern world is intrinsically linked to the increasing rise of unhappiness. Personally I don't think it helps but ultimately we are at fault for seeking illusionary certainty. Rather than accepting uncertainty for what it is and emotionally evolving to the point where it no longer has a hold over us.

The first past the post electoral system is at fault there, not the voters. If I vote for the party I really want, I risk letting Labour in.

[Galant]

Sure, clever people can also be irrational, but at least there is a chance they might understand the concepts. Those of below average IQ simply are of below average IQ. They never will understand and simply vote on what trendy types call EQ. Above average IQ people might make informed decisions some of the time - not saying they will, but they at least are theoretically capable.

The right to vote isn't about being informed. Being informed is how one votes responsibly. The right to vote is about every human involved being allowed a voice, even if that voice and opinion is informed by silly reasons it's still important. Having said that, I know a good few people who might well be classed as of less than average intelligence who I'd trust to make much better and wiser decisions than other 'geniuses' I know.

[wasabi]

The right to vote isn't about being informed. Being informed is how one votes responsibly. The right to vote is about every human involved being allowed a voice, even if that voice and opinion is informed by silly reasons it's still important. Having said that, I know a good few people who might well be classed as of less than average intelligence who I'd trust to make much better and wiser decisions than other 'geniuses' I know.

To drive on the road we require people to pass a competence test. To take part in running the country, a much more complex task, we don't. Why?