Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

The Queen and her difficult position.

51 replies

HappydaysArehere · 19/04/2015 10:01

The Queen has been the ear of numerous prime ministers for her entire reign. In this respect she probably has more wisdom and knowledge of the political scene than anyone in this country. Of course she is above politics and now she might well be presented with a real predicament. It must be heart breaking for her to contemplate the possible outcome. No matter what you think of the Monarchy the one thing I am sure of is that she really cares for this country and the Commonwealth. She must feel like a mother with a load of squabbling kids hell bent on messing everything up.

OP posts:
tribpot · 19/04/2015 10:12

Do you mean if there is a hung parliament (as seems likely) and the parties struggle to find a working coalition between themselves? I don't think she has so much of a predicament (surely no-one is suggesting the Queen will draw names out of a hat - or a crown - and make a coalition herself that way?) as much as an opportunity to use 60 odd years of political savvy to help bring about a stable government. If it comes to it, I'm very glad we have a non-political head of state whose goal will be helping to ensure a smooth transition rather than victory for a particular ideology (although I'm sure the Queen is a natural Tory).

eurochick · 19/04/2015 10:13

What difficult position? Your post isn't clear.

ElectraCute · 19/04/2015 10:16

What are you talking about?

Springtimemama · 19/04/2015 10:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MyArksNotReady · 19/04/2015 10:31

She sure is experienced, I don't think a hung parliament is her problem to fix. They call a new election surely?

Original poster
HappydaysArehere · 19/04/2015 10:32

It's her political savvy that I respect. It is apparent that she is not entitled to exercise it which is a shame. I am not sure about her leanings but remember stories of her washing up with Mary Wilson on a private visit on one of the estates and a strained relationship with Maggie Thatcher. So, we will never know.

OP posts:
Springtimemama · 19/04/2015 10:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

tribpot · 19/04/2015 10:43

No, I don't think they call a new election - if it comes to it there is a process to govern with a minority.

I don't think it is clear that she no influence, although strictly speaking she should have no political influence (in the sense of party politics). At minimum she will be meeting with the PM weekly throughout any negotiation period.

Sixweekstowait · 19/04/2015 10:59

Agree absolutely that we have no idea how wise she is - being old does not equal being wise. She just keeps quiet unlike Charles. She has absolutely no idea at all what is best for the country as she has no idea what the country is really like and what would make it better for people living hard lives that she could not begin to imagine.

GibberingFlapdoodle · 19/04/2015 12:43

How would the queen know anything about what it's like trying to survive on minimum wage with essential government top-ups while being vilified by the media as a scrounger? Not to say she doesn't, never having met her Smile but I can't see how she would. Well she might have empathy with that last point I guess!

Sixweekstowait · 19/04/2015 13:38

As she has sod all idea about the lives that most of her so-called subjects live, she should stay right away from any involvement in the formation of the next government. Heartbreaking? what? That we are able to vote as we wish and she may not like the outcome? Some might call that democracy and some of us might think that the existence of the queen is the very antithesis of that.

blacksunday · 24/04/2015 07:28

Oh, poor Queen! It must be difficult for her to mull over the fate of her 'subjects' whilst living in tax-payer funded castles and mansion with a dozen servants.

TheOriginalSteamingNit · 24/04/2015 07:31

What 'political savvy'?

trice · 24/04/2015 07:33

I thought she paid some of her staff minimum wage and kept them on zero hour contacts. I think that shows her political leanings.

Sixweekstowait · 24/04/2015 16:03

Yes and the royal household is exempt from the Equality Act - still that's logical given how they get their jobs.

blacksunday · 24/04/2015 19:50

republic.org.uk/

Campaigning for a democratic alternative to the monarchy

Sixweekstowait · 25/04/2015 00:43

I wish!

caroldecker · 25/04/2015 01:28

why would anyone want yet another layer of political influence. The Queen as head of state is cheap, effective and has no political influence.

YonicScrewdriver · 25/04/2015 01:54

Yy carol.

"surely no-one is suggesting the Queen will draw names out of a hat - or a crown"

LOL!

blacksunday · 25/04/2015 08:09

The Queen as head of state is cheap, effective and has no political influence.

That's incorrect:

----
RE: The Monarchy

It has no power – it's just for decoration

The Queen certainly does have power, including the power to sign international treaties and deploy British troops abroad. It's true that most of these "royal prerogative powers" are today exercised by government, but that in itself is a serious problem. These powers have been transferred directly from the monarch to the prime minister and don't need the approval of parliament, effectively shutting out the British people from important decisions. That is fundamentally anti-democratic – and it can only happen because we have a monarchy.

The Queen and Prince Charles also have the power to veto bills that affect their private interests. Official legal advice makes clear that Queen's and Prince's Consent (as the "royal veto" is officially known) is not a mere formality. The process by which consent is obtained provides a clear opportunity for the Queen and the Prince of Wales to influence the shape and content of a bill before it reaches Parliament.

Then there's the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn't changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy.

republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/it-has-no-power-%E2%80%93-its-just-decoration

Sixweekstowait · 25/04/2015 10:28

Black - absolutely. And along with the Queen as head of state we get a motley crew of womanisers/adulteres/failed business men/fascinator wearing/ clothes horses/ night club visiting / hypocritical parasites. And as for their political power, why do you think the Equality Act doesn't apply to them or now the FOI for idiot Charles' spider letters? What about the development plans he gets turned down by using his influence with certain repressive, women hating corrupt Arab States? And don't get me started on his views on architecture - Poundbury? architect designed? seriously?. I'm not all that keen on UKiP of the Tories either but as least we have some sort of imperfect democratic process that I am allowed to engage with that helps to effect whether they are in power or not. Having a monarchy and especially the type we have infantilises us and is an effrontery to democracy

Sixweekstowait · 25/04/2015 10:29

Or effront even

Sixweekstowait · 25/04/2015 10:29

Or is it affront? Well you know what I mean

caroldecker · 25/04/2015 11:25

black The power of the monarchy is exactly that, a check to the power of parliament, unused whilst we have a democratic government, in place if it loses its head.
What system would you replace it with, or would you have the PM as head of state?

Gwynfluff · 25/04/2015 11:39

After her uncle abdicated, it was clear he had nazi sympathies. Why assume the monarchy would support the democratic regime? I suspect they'd support whoever was most likely to protect their essentially undemocratic, privileged position of inherited wealth and power.