Head of State.

[CurlewKate]

Can someone please explain to me as if I'm an alien learning about how Earth Countries are governed why we need a Head of Stare?

Entwined?
Strange way to put it for a supposedly apolitcal head of state.

I imagine the Windsors would become subject to the law ( as other European monarchs are) , they would therefore pay tax etc. That should happen regardless of any change though .
Everything else is currently held in right of the state anyway - the jewels the palaces the art - would then become proper state assets , generating wealth .
Its not as complicated as people would have you believe .
Watch what all the states removing Charles as head of State do - Australia or New Zealand will do so in near future.

OP as you asked if a head of state is needed - I’m not convinced we do. The speaker could do it but that would be seen as political. But most other head of states are political. The uk head of state would have no power . We are told all power lies with parliament and Elizabeth stood by while Boris prorogued parliament so what the difference?

OP as you asked if a head of state is needed - I’m not convinced we do. The speaker could do it but that would be seen as political. But most other head of states are political. The uk head of state would have no power . We are told all power lies with parliament and Elizabeth stood by while Boris prorogued parliament so what the difference?

It was widely discussed several times between Brexit and Boris that the monarch has absolute power to intervene in UK politics, but only gets to use it once. Which largely ensures the monarch stays out of politics and doesn't use that power. The closest QE2 came to interfering in politics was her choice of hat, which I loved her for.

Entwined is a very apt word. The whole system of making and enabling law in the UK depends on the monarch . To change it to something else would required untwining the role of the monarch from all the processes and procedures of government and the judiciary.

In would prefer a president like Ireland . The monarchy is an absurd example of hereditary privilege which has no place in a modern country

I think the argument that ‘ it’s too difficult ‘ has become the last defence standing of those in favour of the Windsors

I think it’s not beyond us to arrange things .
Lawyers? Remove the cipher and pledge to the people not Charles . What will Australia and Canada do ? Are they equally flummoxed? I think they’ll manage as would we

It's difficult, not too difficult.

What would be your preferred style of government @Ukisgaslit ?

I’m interested in the concept of no head of state . But I’m open to any ideas - the newer the better !
We can’t continue as we are

I will say that it is unnerving that the armed forces, police and MPs pledge allegiance to Charles and not to the people
That really is unsettling - and very telling
Charles does not pledge to the people as other European monarchies do - that is revealing in itself . We are living with aspects of medieval monarchy and it is not ‘heritage’ it is embarrassing

Do you mean genuinely without a Head of State? Or just without a hereditary Monarch? They're not the same thing. You can have a HoS without a monarchy.

Even Switzerland (ruled by a committee of equals) has a titular HoS even if they have no additional powers for purposes of representation on the international stage.

It's difficult to imagine a system of government that genuinely has no head of state. The post-war constitutions of Germany and Japan retain a HoS separate from the Executive, and the post-Soviet constitutions of the eastern European nations I've just quickly checked up on have done the same.

Having the HoS role bound the the Executive role as the USA does, doesn't appear to be beneficial to democracy if that's a good example of it.

I meant no head of state - the monarchy is a different question - that is going or will be reformed so much that it’s no longer the cash grab it currently is so the Windsors will walk

I see what the OP is saying - ‘all the countries have a HOS so we need one too- isn’t a convincing argument . Neither is meet and greet .

And PS I’ve never met a critic of our current situation who wants a US / France type president . Never once .
A figurehead at most . If you look on the threads re the Windsors that’s a tiresome royalist argument - I don’t want a trump ! No one is suggesting a trump style executive president …

Tories out that is the next one for you of course. I wish we would have had a head of state who could prevented the Dictatorship in our country. Really as good as a layer of security.

So how can you stop a Trump? If we are talking Democracy?

Suppose the monarchy disappeared overnight. Wouldn't that make the Prime Minister the HoS in the eyes of the world? (and most of the populace).

I'm trying to figure out what you want to get away from, and what you'd propose instead. It can't just be "not this".

Personally, of the options I've looked at, I quite like the post-war German constitution and form of government. And from a purely procedural and admin side of things, it's easier to work a government with a HoS than without one. But you make it part of the role that whilst it's mostly titular and for the convenience of the administration of government, it is there to represent the people and to rise above day-to-day politics.

One of the arguments I would have for retaining the royal family as head of state is that I don't think there is any other easy choice for it in the UK.

We would either end up with someone incredibly boring who no one has ever heard of (maybe a supreme court judge) or someone that has led a public life and is therefore open to all sorts of accusations of bias, for example ex. politicians or business people.

At least the royal family know from birth they are expected to fulfill an apolitical role and in my opinion they largely succeed at that.

@GasPanic do you read the news?

Andrew Charles and various other Windsor hangers on have all had dealings with agents of foreign governments in return for cash
And they have had no legal repercussions whatsoever because shrugs it’s the Windsors and they can do what they like .

I don't think the monarchy has the same level of public respect and trust after the Queen's death. Charles might be able to get some of that back for William if he spends his reign pruning back the dead wood and side branches, and creating a new and less regal image for The Firm.

Given the above, and the ongoing morality implosion in the CoE, and the Conservatives who would traditionally defend the hereditary monarchy to the death being in a rudderless death spiral.. there's currently a very big opportunity for initiating discussion of wide-reaching constitutional reform.

And actually ‘retaining the royal family as head of state’ is also not the same as tolerating what we have now .

Ive said on another thread - clean up the financial and other abuses that the Windsors are guilty of , make them subject to the law , all their object d’art and estate properly under state control and pay them the remuneration of a HOS - then if people still want Charlie then ok .

Agreed

I heard a professor of economic theory lament that the UK is now the most unequal society in Europe and more unequal than even the US. He was describing how young people are trapped with little upward mobility . He said we are more class bound than ever

Havinf the monarchy grow richer each year with no check and avalanches on their abuses is linked to this I’m sure .
We absorb this dull unintelligent lot literally take from our social services and nothing is done .
That makes our society moribund and lacking in hope .

Checks or balances not avalanches!

Some of this is embedded in the two-party system, with both main parties moving away from previously aspirational positions.

Thatcher desired to create upward mobility and aspiration, but adopted the wrong model and didn't fully think through the consequences of actions. The current Tory party is now trying to lock-in the current inequalities for those that have already achieved their position.

Blair came in with the most progressive set of policies I can recall, but the concept of New Labour has become deeply unfashionable within the current Labour party and they're still wallowing in a post-Corbyn/post-Brexit malaise. Although I do have a sliver of hope that they're genuinely playing the long game - there are hints of if in their first Budget. Blair also made errors in not addressing productivity issues head-on, and then trashed his reputation by going along with Bush too readily rather than pausing and offering wise council.