About time the UK had a president?

[NoNewsisGood]

And, yes, before we start, the answer is 'yes' and of course it should be me! 😇

But, in all seriousness, I was struck over the last few days seeing the events at the White House with the European presidents, who deal with all the external stuff for their countries, international issues, diplomacy, etc. while their respective PMs deal with running the country back home.

Then, there is Starmer....who is trying to do it all (and getting a lot of criticism for it). I feel a bit sorry for him. Obviously, we can't send Charlie over there to be with the others, but these days it seems like the UK is lagging behind without a head of state who can deal with the politics of the age.

Thoughts?

Also happy to learn that we have some UK system where there is more support for the PM when she/he has to rush off to deal with international issues compared to presidential countries.

Keir Starmer wanted the job. Everyone else before him did it, not sure why he needs help and sympathy.

@OnlyMabelInTheBuilding Nothing to do with Starmer himself, my question is more to do with the fact that the UK needs someone's attention, but the UK also needs representing on the world stage, and politically, not just the pomp and circumstance variety. But, there is only one person to do both jobs right now, which seems to be a lot. Your point that he wanted that job is irrelevant as it was the only one available.

And on tope of that we would save fortune paying for the royal family.

Yes, a president would be great. Get rid off the royals and elect someone.

Bingo list:

Boris Johnson
Tony Blair
Harold Shipman (yup, seen him given as an example)

Yeah, the downside is someone terrible being elected.....but....elections are at least better than the royals, and there would be someone who can represent the UK outside the country. This week has really brought it home to me that it is mad that the UK has just one person to do so much, with the royals seemingly just visiting for goodwill and giving people lunch (I know, presidents do that a lot too).

I think you’re misunderstanding other countries’ systems. Germany and Italy and Austria have presidents but all of them send their prime ministers to deal with all substantial matters - the presidents are entirely ceremonial, like our royal family. Ditto Ireland. Spain has a king just like ours - the Spanish PM does all the political stuff that Keir Starmer does.

In Europe it’s only really France that has a political President who can go to Ukraine summits etc, as well as a prime minister more focussed on domestic matters.

Ah, yes, I thought Meloni was president! (doh)

Hmm...ok, well, I still think it is a good idea to have two different people - one to deal with international stuff and one to deal with domestic. Seems like most European countries have a lot on their plates right now to expect one person to do both. Is it a hangover from European monarchies? And yes, I know Spain and Sweden still have them.

If you started with a clean sheet of paper you'd not have a Constitutional Monarchy.

However we've got one and it's likely to be as good as anything else.

One lesson from Brexit is the massive opportunity cost of constitutional upheaval.

the fact that the UK needs someone's attention, but the UK also needs representing on the world stage, and politically, not just the pomp and circumstance variety. But, there is only one person to do both jobs right now,

What do you think all the Secretaries of State and Ministers are for, OP? It is not the PM's job to do everything.

I only do you have to worry about presidents you also have to worry about ex presidents. At best they have a very expensive security detail for life at worst they forget they’re no longer president people complain about the cost of the Royal family but of ex presidents would cost way more. I also don’t think Charlie does a bad job, it’s a stick for me.

Honestly it's no fun having a political person as your representation overseas, even if democratically elected. At least the royals (and not just ours, also the other constitutional monarchies like the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway etc) and other country's presidents are apolitical and ceremonial, and the opposition party in parliament is the king/queen's loyal opposition.

I remember when 9/11 happened, anyone who opposed Republican policies after that would be accused of being disloyal/not patriotic and the same thing is happening under Trump at the moment.

The cost saving reason is often quoted for changing to a presidential head of state, but I've never seen any actual supporting figures.

Elections cost money, the 'president' would need somewhere to live, which would have to be maintained, need security, transportation, staff, a salary. their family would need security, transportation etc etc.

A presidential system is not a free good

Police crime commissioner and is probably a good example of a complete waste of time of an elected post.
Certainly in Gt Manchester.

Who are they accountable to?
Why do they get to spend any money at all?

Just look at the money wasted by the Gt Manchester CAZ nonsense.

Hate to break it to you @mumda but Greater Manchester hasn't had a Police and Crime Commissioner since 2017. All covered by the Mayor now - you know that Andy Burnham. Who has to stand for election. So presumably accountable to the Greater Manchester electorate.

Lol! I keep running across remarks that the U.S. should have a monarchy like the U.K.

No.

all interesting points....

And I think it would be hard to change it in the UK any time soon. Though, my own feeling is that the support for Charles and William is a lot less than it was for the Queen, so I guess if they start to move more towards obscurity like other European monarchs, then maybe there is a conversation to be had then.

I know there are other ministers @HonoriaBulstrode but is it that different a set up for those who have a president and a PM? Perhaps it is and they are all more senior. Like I said, not given it huge amount of thought til this week when I saw that Starmer was there in that group.

Not just other ministers though @NoNewsisGood there are devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. How would you see an elected UK president fitting with existing devolved arrangements?

I was planning on that being my next step...

if they start to move more towards obscurity like other European monarchs

I'm not sure what you mean by obscurity - other European monarchs are just as visible within their own countries as patrons of charities, supporting the national football team at matches, hosting visiting heads of state, getting crowned/married/christened/buried etc. We just see more of our own in our media, because they're ours.

Imagine if you sat down and designed a system from scratch - you might say ok, we like the parliamentary system, we need a politically elected executive branch which is accountable to the voters who steer through new laws and a politically elected legislature who are a check on the executive. There's a political leader, but that person only represents those who voted for her/him.

So maybe you want a separate head of state that's not the same as the political leader, to sign bills into law (separating legislative from executive), meet and greet other heads of state, represent your country at ceremonial occasions etc. You could elect this head of state as well, but that immediately becomes a party-political decision and you might end up with a Trump figure, who only represents half the country. So instead you could say - well, let's have someone who represents everyone - maybe a lottery? So you put all citizens' names in a hat and pull one out. But what if you get someone unsuitable, or who doesn't want to do it, or can't stand the scrutiny, or who is corrupt and venal and uses the position for their own financial gain (see again: Trump).

So then you'd say ok let's have a special class of people who from birth know that they will be prepared and trained to do it and then choose them randomly. Then the state houses and feeds them and you'd kind of have to make it nice enough to justify them slogging away doing charity work and smiling all day and never complaining, signing away the human rights many of us take for granted like the ability to have political associations or a private family life, every action and pore and line on your face and word that comes out of your mouth and item of clothing scrutinised every second of every day and absolutely no complaining allowed.

Also to save money you might say - we can't switch around every few years, we'll end up with loads of ex-heads of states around needing security and housing - so you make it a job for life that you can't get out of. And you have to be trained for it from birth by virtue of who you are. And it's randomly chosen, and you can't have a normal life at all, and these people just have to accept it as an accident of the randomised system.

You basically end up with a politically powerless constitutional monarch, like we have already.