Re~Stirred Forum

Isn't the point of a constitutional monarch in a parliamentary democracy to be an apolitical counterbalance (much like, say judges, who we also don't elect). Wouldn't electing them, by nature, remove that?

Well in eastern European countries, the tradition was that it was passed down the male descendants but the brothers of the King were next in line then after them, the first born male of the oldest brother. This did lead to plenty of disputes between uncles and nephews.

To illustrate using the current royal family, the succession line would be Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, Harry.

So the choice of succession is simply a particular tradition which has been codified rather than a principle. Also I don't think that you can look at the history of British/English monarchs and say that the royal line has been run on principle.

So why can't, for speculative purposes, the UK introduce a new "principle" of democratic monarchy? Parliament could pass a law stating that the succession will be voted on and all of the current monarch's descendants would be put up for the position (as this went on, the field will become wider). Under that system, I would vote for Anne.

Is the Queen a counterbalance? Her powers are extremely limited, even non-existent, depending on which constitutional expert you follow.

I do like the idea of a lottery to decide our head of state, someone gets picked to do it for a year at random from the electoral roll. Same sort of social duty as jury service.

So why can't, for speculative purposes, the UK introduce a new "principle" of democratic monarchy? Parliament could pass a law stating that the succession will be voted on and all of the current monarch's descendants would be put up for the position (as this went on, the field will become wider). Under that system, I would vote for Anne.

OK, then replace the word 'counterbalance' with 'figurehead'. The point still stands.

I would argue that even a figurehead should be chosen by the people. This need not make the post political. In Ireland some presidents have been prominent politicians, others have not.

I just can't see how you can have an election for anything of constitutional import without it being political (small 'p' and not to be confused with 'party political').

I knew about Charter 88, Andy, and I never felt particularly passionate about what they had to say. But surely there's nothing wrong with discussion about constitutional matters? I don't really get your apparent animosity. All part of a healthy liberal/ left tradition, I would have thought.
The Marxist/ ex Marxist thing sounds like a bit of an irrelevance really. There's plenty of people around who were/ are influenced by Marx, and are engaged in political action or discussion of one kind of another. Don't see what makes them 'the worst' of anything really.

I've always found the factionalism on the left one of its least atractive features, and on the left though I undoubtedly am, it's been one of the main reasons that I've never been particularly politically active.

By an extraordinary coincidence - I couldn't have planned this - BBC News has this article on just the topic. Does this explain the connection, wondering (and others)?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18351323

Indeed it's more than I thought. I didn't know the profits from King Street funded the pro AV campaign and keep C88 alive. This is exactly it. Republicanism isn't mentioned but it's an ingredient of the brew.

In November 1991, shortly before the CPGB was wound up, its members were shocked by revelations that between 1956 and the late 1970s, it had been secretly funded by the Soviet Union.

I especially liked the line:

It's Captain Renault in Casablanca - "I'm shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling in this establishment." At which point, he's handed his winnings from the tables.

Oh, thank you, Andy. That's made my morning! I know, I'm sad! I especially liked the line:

It's Captain Renault in Casablanca - "I'm shocked, shocked to find that there is gambling in this establishment." At which point, he's handed his winnings from the tables.

Mind you, the story of the such organisations justifies wonderings comment about factionalism on the left. I remember at university not just the CPGB, but the CPGB-Marxist Leninist (CPGB-ML), the Revolutionary Communist Party, as well as our old friends the Socialist Workers. More often at each others doctrinal throats than attacking anyone else. Oh, hell, I'm getting nostalgic now - I'll stop whilst I'm ahead!

For any organization that once had 60,000 members assets of "between £2.5m and £4m" would not be exceptional.
The article does make clear that property values were the important factor:
"If it hadn't been for the grotesque inflation of the value of those properties, there wouldn't have been anything.."
There is no estimate as to the values of "bundles of cash" from the Soviet embassy, it could be anything from loose change to millions!

Getting back to the vagueness of the topic at hand - Royalty! Another possible alternative is for the monarchy to adopt all-women short-lists for the 21st century. That is, make the succession the first born female rather than male. If we have to have a silly tradition of monarchy, lets have a succession of queens rather than kings.

There is no estimate as to the values of "bundles of cash" from the Soviet embassy, it could be anything from loose change to millions!

Another good day at "The Trooping of The Colour". Aye nice turn out for her.!

Another good day at "The Trooping of The Colour". Aye nice turn out for her.!