Would Jubileevit?

[teamsaint]

If that is correct then that would be a good reason to move to a republic. However, that assumes that any replacement system will indeed be based on more equitable principles. I am not entirely convinced that this would be the case.

I’d need a very convincing argument not to change, even though republics may and do have serious issues. And that is just looking at it through the lens of pragmatism.
There is also a moral question to address, of institutional privilege in a democracy where meritocracy is supposedly so central.

[RichardB]

I think that most countries would agree that "eventually fossil fuel burning will have to stop" for reasons that can be understood. There isn't any particular agreement that having a head of state eventually will have to stop.

I wasn't making any kind of equivalence between the two, just pointing out that the fact that there are no countries with a particular characteristic doesn't really mean that much. There are no countries without socioeconomic inequality either, something which might well have a lot to do with a top-down approach to social organisation, which is another way of saying what teamsaint was saying.

[teamsaint]

I think that most countries would agree that "eventually fossil fuel burning will have to stop" for reasons that can be understood. There isn't any particular agreement that having a head of state eventually will have to stop. It is one (obsolete) definition of anarchy, which some individuals may advocate but I don't think the sentiment is strong enough to prevail globally.

Iceland is pretty close to being 100% renewables.



It's strange that some of the most-admired countries for their democratic egalitarianism are monarchies: Norway, Sweden, Denmark.

I really don’t know how the monarchies of those countries fit into their social systems. But it seems pretty clear to me that our class system, peerage, land ownership, the public schools, and their further reach into the structure of state , are given justification ( a two way thing) by a monarchy which is based on accident of birth.

[Keraulophone]

Iceland is pretty close to being 100% renewables.

Over 99% of the electricity production in mainland Norway is from 31 GW hydropower plants.
.

[Ein Heldenleben]

A job that doesn't need to be done (acting as a symbol of hereditary inequality), for which she is paid an astronomical amount. Why are "heads of state" necessary anyway? sorry, offtopic

Partly because of the need to separate the executive from the legislature. Judges in the UK are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. It’s very important that the judiciary is seen to be independent from political interference - it’s even better if they are in fact free from it. The Army answers to the Crown not the Prime Minister. Officers in the Army swear loyalty to the Queen not the PM. In practice the PM’s role a is acquiring more and more of a Presidential status that in some ways cuts across this - something that has given rise to concern amongst constitutional experts.

[Joseph K]

I really don’t know how the monarchies of those countries fit into their social systems. But it seems pretty clear to me that our class system, peerage, land ownership, the public schools, and their further reach into the structure of state , are given justification ( a two way thing) by a monarchy which is based on accident of birth.

Well-put (again). Finland had the right idea of getting rid of public schools (that's private schools to our American friends).

[Bryn]

Well-put (again). Finland had the right idea of getting rid of public schools (that's private schools to our American friends).

What an uncharitable suggestion.

[muzzer]

Britain is essentially feudal. The monarchy holds it all together. People in this country love tugging their forelock in preference to putting the time in to create real change. Everything is so much simpler because everyone knows their place. This is what the ungodly have so effectively exploited in recent years.

I don’t like any more than you ( yes, ‘you’ ;) )do but I can’t see it changing. There will be a wobble when Charles is King, because he doesn’t understand the job description, but Queen Kate will put everything right because she knows the score.

[french frank]

Partly because of the need to separate the executive from the legislature. Judges in the UK are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the Prime Minister. It’s very important that the judiciary is seen to be independent from political interference - it’s even better if they are in fact free from it. The Army answers to the Crown not the Prime Minister. Officers in the Army swear loyalty to the Queen not the PM. In practice the PM’s role a is acquiring more and more of a Presidential status that in some ways cuts across this - something that has given rise to concern amongst constitutional experts.

I share that view. Heaven preserve us from the American system where so much in public life/public appointments, is politicised, backed by 'democratic' elections (smarties or humbugs).

The British public school system I would take a closer look at vis-à-vis their influence in public life.

[pastoralguy]

The British public school system I would take a closer look at vis-à-vis their influence in public life.

One of my best friends went to one of the top public schools in Edinburgh. He told me they launched an appeal for a million pounds aimed at former pupils to build a sports facility. They ended up with TEN million! Goodness knows why these schools have charitable status.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I share that view. Heaven preserve us from the American system where so much in public life/public appointments, is politicised, backed by 'democratic' elections (smarties or humbugs).

The British public school system I would take a closer look at vis-à-vis their influence in public life.

Actually I think electing local officials is a very good idea. When I lived In New York State when the elections came up you could elect every one from the sheriff to the local head librarian. The problem in this country is that we don’t have enough democracy. People have disengaged from local elections because they (correctly) perceive that local politicians have little power. The powerlessness that many feel - particularly in the working classes who have been de-unionised - is one reason why populist politicians have come to the fore. We badly neEd counterweights to the overweening power of the House Of Commons and the real power behind that - the quasi - presidential powers assumed by No.10. We are seeing law after law passed which concentrates more power in barely 1/2 an acre of this country.

[french frank]

Actually I think electing local officials is a very good idea. When I lived In New York State when the elections came up you could elect every one from the sheriff to the local head librarian.

Well, I do rather disagree with that. I don't think electing a librarian would be any guarantee of getting a good librarian. But I was thinking more about federal and state positions where it boils down to voting between a Republican candidate and a Democrat. Or presidential appointments to the judiciary. Devolving powers to their lowest viable level would be a different matter.

[crb11]

Actually I think electing local officials is a very good idea.... The powerlessness that many feel - particularly in the working classes who have been de-unionised - is one reason why populist politicians have come to the fore.

I can see the attraction of giving local people the say, but I can't see how you avoid it devolving into a combination of party nominees or just local populism, both of which are what is happening in practice already. For instance, almost all the Police and Crime Commissioners were elected with a party label - and that's a role you want to be as independent as possible. Our local previous elected Mayor was a clear populist who spent his time making promises he had no way of fulfilling, but was otherwise a waste of space (and there were some allegations made that he was corrupt) until he got voted out next time round.

One problem as I see it is that the skill-set required to do these kinds of roles well doesn't intersect well with those required to run a successful campaign, so to get elected you either need to plug into a party machine, or manage to do so as an independent, which tends to push you in the populist direction. The other is that even as an interested outsider it's quite hard to do the research sufficient to work out which of the possible candidates is worth voting for - and I don't feel that most voters are willing to make the effort anyway.

[Pulcinella]

I can see the attraction of giving local people the say, but I can't see how you avoid it devolving into a combination of party nominees or just local populism, both of which are what is happening in practice already. For instance, almost all the Police and Crime Commissioners were elected with a party label - and that's a role you want to be as independent as possible. Our local previous elected Mayor was a clear populist who spent his time making promises he had no way of fulfilling, but was otherwise a waste of space (and there were some allegations made that he was corrupt) until he got voted out next time round.

One problem as I see it is that the skill-set required to do these kinds of roles well doesn't intersect well with those required to run a successful campaign, so to get elected you either need to plug into a party machine, or manage to do so as an independent, which tends to push you in the populist direction. The other is that even as an interested outsider it's quite hard to do the research sufficient to work out which of the possible candidates is worth voting for - and I don't feel that most voters are willing to make the effort anyway.

The only time I've knowingly spoilt a ballot paper was the first such election.
I scrawled across the names saying exactly that!
I don't think that we had an Independent candidate at the time; subsequently that person has always had my vote.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I can see the attraction of giving local people the say, but I can't see how you avoid it devolving into a combination of party nominees or just local populism, both of which are what is happening in practice already. For instance, almost all the Police and Crime Commissioners were elected with a party label - and that's a role you want to be as independent as possible. Our local previous elected Mayor was a clear populist who spent his time making promises he had no way of fulfilling, but was otherwise a waste of space (and there were some allegations made that he was corrupt) until he got voted out next time round.

One problem as I see it is that the skill-set required to do these kinds of roles well doesn't intersect well with those required to run a successful campaign, so to get elected you either need to plug into a party machine, or manage to do so as an independent, which tends to push you in the populist direction. The other is that even as an interested outsider it's quite hard to do the research sufficient to work out which of the possible candidates is worth voting for - and I don't feel that most voters are willing to make the effort anyway.

I don’t think these roles would necessarily be politicised to be honest . I also think that you’ ll find a lot of Labour voters in Brum who think Andy Street is doing a good job promoting the city : Ditto Burnham and Tory voters in Manchester. It would be much better of course that both cities had the sort of power they had in the 19th century. Cities generate the overwhelming majority of our GDP and political power need to reflect that. At the moment only one city enjoys that - the City Of London. That has near despotic powers.