What do you want as head of state for the UK

[wordler]

We are a mixed bag of pro and anti-monarchy on here so I've created a little poll to see at a glance were we stand:

https://poll-maker.com/Q72KOF2ZL

I've added a Something Else option as I ran out of what I thought were all the possibilities.

It's anonymous but feel free to expand in the comments.

The first thing I'd do is get rid of the House of Lords, or at least seriously reform it. Getting rid of hereditary peers - great. Filling it with cronies? No. People who have donated £5m+ to your party? No. Some of them have poor attendance and don't even contribute to debate.

That’s true.

However, you do need to remember that there are fewer than 30 ceremonial monarchies in the world, so to have 50% of the top 10 made up of them still means they are disproportionately represented.

There are around 80 countries with an executive president, a presidential system or a semi presidential system. Very tellingly, not a single one of them features in the top ten.

Every country in the top 10 has a ceremonial head of state with no real executive power. They all have either a ceremonial monarch or a ceremonial president.

It goes back to what I said earlier in the thread about the fact that I think it’s unwise to think purely in terms of monarchy vs republic. It’s far more nuanced than that.

Our constitutional system shares far more with Ireland, Taiwan or Finland’s systems than those systems share with the US. The most important feature of a political system is not whether it is a monarchy or a republic.

Indeed, the countries where the population have the most trust in their government are the ones with greater economic equality, irrespective of whether it's a constitutional monarchy or republic.

Slightly off topic but as has been hinted earlier in the thread, the UK's problems are not so much the RF but the awful quality of many of our politicians. get the strong impression that politicans of all parties were just SO MUCH BETTER in those days. Even if you deplore Margaret Thatcher's lot, they were high-powered economists, lawyers,academic historians or people with a successful track record in business. The Labour party had some excellent MPs and ministers who'd come through the trade unions as well. My personal favourite MP/minister always been Alan Johnson.

I really hate it when I hear that a 29-year-old MP has done PPE at Oxford, got a job as a parliamentary researcher and then sought selection as a candidate. Get a proper job and prove yourself first! Live in the real world, outside the Westminster bubble. Maybe have children (not compulsory, but you know what I mean...) and try to get them into local schools etc etc. But do something real first, before trying to represent the rest of us.

Now no-one loves history, tradition and great architecture more than me, but I once listened to a radio discussion and one idea struck me. The Palace of West minster needs a lot of renovation work and the idea was mooted that a new parliament building should be constructed - rather like the Scottish and Welsh parliament buildings. A pundit suggested that this should be based in Birmingham - and at first I thought: what?? But he made the very good point that you might get a better quality of person as an MP because you'd lose the perceived glamour of being in London and in Westiminster - anyone putting themselves forward would be more likely to be genuinely interested in serving their constituents in a non-glamorous environment. I think there's something in this!
No offence to Brum. I lived there for several years - I just mean - it's a more relatable place than Westminster.

What is this 'greater economic equality'? I've asked a version of this a couple of times. Any chance of a definition or do I have to go away and 'educate myself'?

I don’t think that’s holds up as an explanation. Income inequality doesn’t line up particularly well with open and democratic government. Yes there are open and democratic states among the ten countries with the lowest levels of wealth inequality, but Belarus, UAE and Azerbaijan are also in that top ten. Syria is two places ahead of Finland and 61 places ahead of Australia in terms of wealth equality. I don’t think trust in government is better in Syria than in Australia.

The correlation between non-executive heads of state and open democracies is much much stronger. 21 out of the 24 countries considered “full democracies” have a non-executive head of state. Of the remaining three France has a semi-presidential system, leaving only Costa Rica and Uruguay who have true presidential systems where the Head of State is also head of government.

The openess of democracy & trust in its institutions isn't the same thing though.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164070423000824

"One widely studied determinant of political trust is income inequality. While the empirical finding that societies with lower levels of income inequality have higher levels of trust is well established, the exact ways in which income inequality affects political trust remain unclear."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11205-023-03168-

@Takoneko I think we're using different data

That’s the same list that I am using.

All 10 of those countries have a non-executive head of state.
There are no presidential republics in the top 10.

In the top 24 (categorised as full democracies) there are only two presidential republics and one semi-presidential republic. The other 21 are all parliamentary systems with either a ceremonial monarch or a ceremonial president.

For wealth inequality I was using a ranking by the world bank gini percentages.

Same here.

Latest result looks like 89% on here for some form of monarchy.

But I'm still curious about the 3% who want something entirely different. Apart from a president of some kind, what other options are there? General Secretary - as they have, or used to have, in Soviet Russia and China? I think that's pretty much like a Prime MInister, though - 'first among equals' in some kind of cabinet or committee??

I’m bumping this thread for any republicans who want a discussion -
I’m happy with being a constitutional monarchy.

Me too ! @WatchOutMissMarpleIsAbout

it would have to be some form of presidency/ elected head of state for me with no constitutional or parliamentary power.
Basically an ambassador who would serve a fixed term , get to live in one of the palaces for the duration and host dinners/ visit charities /fly the flag for Britain. The stuff the RF does now but just the one person and spouse/children
I think maybe 5 years would be a good term .

I want to keep the monarchy. I would end all theoretical political role though, for example the House of Commons would vote in (and out) a Prime Minister.

And happy keeping a constitutional monarchy does not make me a royalist. More a pragmatist in keeping the status quo especially after Brexit.

I think given the absolute state of the US with Trump, and to a lesser but still significant degree the corruption and nepotism of the Tories (particularly Boris), I could never support an elected head.

Our royal family represent us well, and without political involvement can focus on good causes without an eye on the polls.

Our elective system is a bloody mess right now. And I fear the move to the right, greater intolerance, and influence from Trump/Musk in the US.

If we need a Head of State-and I am not convinced we do, I think it should be a fixed term elected appointment. To misquote Tony Benn, we should ask anyone with power "Who gave you this power?""Who do you exercise it for?" "Where does it come from?" "Who are you accountable to?" "How do we get rid of you?"
Royalty does not cone well out of that questionnaire!

The class system in the UK has made many into deferential sycophantic serfs. QED the Monarchy will prevail.

The monarch is HoS.

It's a very useful ceremonial role to take the pressure off the busy PM and ministers - see KC's recent visit to Auschwitz where he represented the UK in paying respect at this solemn commemoration. Also - lots of charities etc gain publicity and a morale-boost by having visits from the HoS or (in the case of a constitutional monarchy) members of the RF. Govt ministers just don't have the time for this kind of ceremonial stuff, but it's important for all kinds of reasons.

Because nowhere else in the world has a class system, does it? Abroad is all a bleedin' workers' paradise!

Love,

A sycophantic serf (but a very happy one!) 😂😂

Earlier this century an American told me that the USA has a class system, not just the Brits.

An elected (and time limited) HoS can perform much the same ceremonial role. The important thing surely is the presence of a senior UK representative.

I think we've covered the threadbare charitable claims extensively over the years but to recap:

The vast majority of charities don't see 'their' royal darken the door from one year's end to another. The royals 'work' far harder at their own charities which can and do duplicate the charitable work of others and lastly our next king is going hard at reducing the charitable patronages he has in favour of his own vanity big projects.

Government officials may not have the time or will to do cermony but local dignitaries can and do fulfill many such duties very successfully.

I'd rather just have an elected HoS than a discussion, but as the serfs are still happily serfing, here's my first question: what level of abuse and cover-up by an unelected monarch is acceptable to you?