Also, “I don’t know anyone who supports the monarchy” implies that you have a very limited circle.
You can’t just have a referendum until the outcome you desire wins.
Can’t they just see the oath to the King as being symbolic for loyalty to the nation?
I mean, the King isn’t personally going to order them about, or personally order them to go to war.
The whole idea of due deference is ridiculous. Surely a conversation worth having regularly.
That is a terrible idea, as it is a one-way decision on a topic the population is relatively undecided on.
Imagine a line of public opinion, wobbling back and forth around 50%. The clear trend is ‘undecided’ if you zoom out. Referenda are just a point on that trend, at a single instance in time – a single referendum does not not predict trends in opinion. Once the change happens, there will not be referenda to reverse it. Therefore, a single referendum is a poor tool to decide anything as if doesn’t control for natural variation in public opinion.
So if we have a referendum and the monarch is abolished, does that mean we could have another referendum every ten years to bring back the monarchy?
Can we put “stoning politicians who lie” on the same referendum?
I’ll play “Things that will never happen” for $250 Alex
>”I think it’s really welcome. I do think the oath is Runitarian
Google is drawing a blank and thinks it’s Unitarian which is a non-denominational version of Christianity.
Having a vote on who the head of state should be at fixed intervals? Unprecedented, insane.
This is so incredibly stupid.
Polling shows a large majority support the monarchy.
Labour adopting this as policy is a great way to harm Labour’s own chances at the next GE.
Just put it on every national ballot.
Which MP do you vote for?
And you still cool with the royals or nah?
If you want to replace an a-political monarch as head of state then you need to come up with a method of ending up with a suitably a-political head of state before anything else. I’m not particularly in favour of a monarchy, but I really don’t want a vocal and inevitably partisan presidential system either.
_The monarchy attracts to itself the kind of sentimental loyalty which otherwise might to the leader of a faction. There is, therefore, far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of the people being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle._
~ Clement Attlee
I’m not a royalist, nor am I a staunch republican, but this resonated with me when I heard it quoted by Rory Stewart last week.
How many here wish brexit had have been a referendum, instead of an executive change? I’d be all for it, once an interchangeable alternative to the Constitution was on the table. That’s where brexit fell short.
Alternatively, let’s have a referendum to abolish the incompetent and corrupt Tories and let the reasonably benevolent and level-headed King rule absolutely.
Mandatory retraining or retests for driving licences every 10 years would improve our quality of life a million times more than this idea.
But go and campaign against referendums across the border. Labour is such a fucking joke.
How long until politicians realise you can’t keep redoing votes because you don’t like the outcome, *cough cough Scotland cough cough*
I totally understand the perspective that the monarchy means our head of state is not a democratically elected entity.
However I feel the people who want to abolish the monarchy forget that would mean that our current head of state would be Liz Truss, and Boris previously. I wouldn’t vote for any politician to be head of state frankly. Currently we’re choosing between the best of a bad lot.
What call? It’s just the same bunch of far left tankie morons peddling their divisisve hypocritical anti establishment nonsense who have somehow deluded themselves into thinking they speak for the vast majority of the wider public using biased survery questions to reinforce it. They don’t, starve them of the oxygen of publicity and they’ll quickly fade back into obsurity where they belong.
History should tell us that you can’t just have a referendum to undo something without having a plan to replace it. That would be like voting on EU membership without having a plan for what happens of people want to leave. Regardless of your brexit stance I think we can all agree that the result was a total mess which could have been avoided.
So are we saying we want to develop concrete plans for what to replace the monarchy with every 10 years just in case the referendum goes that way? Or we want the possibility of constitutional chaos everyb10 years?
Or we could just accept that a democratically elected government should put this in their manifesto with a plan for the replacement and then win an election first.
Just curious, would there be a referendum to reinstate the monarchy, 10 years after the referendum to abolish them passed?
Does this journalist realise that any such vote would be massively in favour of the monarchy.
This is probably going to be unpopular but, can we please stop having referendums on such important things. I want the people who know how to run shit to run shit for a bit. It’s like going to the hospital, I don’t want to be involved, i want the surgeon/doctor/anaesthetist to be making the major decisions. Equally I don’t want kids to dictate their school syllabus, have input sure, but let’s keep it minor.
I have no idea what the consequences of doing this would be, I don’t think many people do, so can we just not fuck about with something that will represent such a drastic change for the country. Cos my bet… we’re gonna fuck it up
Why not just save a few pennies and chuck it at the bottom of the ballot during the general election
29 comments
Please don’t be Labour, please don’t be Labour…
Of fucking course
He’s not wrong, it’s just going to take a while for demographics to shift, as I don’t see the older monarchy favouring people changing their mind.
What? A neverendum?
*Checks notes on Scotland’s right to self-determination.*
That’s not Labour policy!
According to a recent poll, 55% of 16-24 are in favour of the monarchy. And that’s the lowest percentage of all age groups polled.
This is drastically unpopular
ETA:
Here’s the thread from which I sourced the info
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/xnof1a/poll_do_you_think_the_monarchy_should_remain_in/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
Also, “I don’t know anyone who supports the monarchy” implies that you have a very limited circle.
You can’t just have a referendum until the outcome you desire wins.
Can’t they just see the oath to the King as being symbolic for loyalty to the nation?
I mean, the King isn’t personally going to order them about, or personally order them to go to war.
The whole idea of due deference is ridiculous. Surely a conversation worth having regularly.
That is a terrible idea, as it is a one-way decision on a topic the population is relatively undecided on.
Imagine a line of public opinion, wobbling back and forth around 50%. The clear trend is ‘undecided’ if you zoom out. Referenda are just a point on that trend, at a single instance in time – a single referendum does not not predict trends in opinion. Once the change happens, there will not be referenda to reverse it. Therefore, a single referendum is a poor tool to decide anything as if doesn’t control for natural variation in public opinion.
So if we have a referendum and the monarch is abolished, does that mean we could have another referendum every ten years to bring back the monarchy?
Can we put “stoning politicians who lie” on the same referendum?
I’ll play “Things that will never happen” for $250 Alex
>”I think it’s really welcome. I do think the oath is Runitarian
Google is drawing a blank and thinks it’s Unitarian which is a non-denominational version of Christianity.
Having a vote on who the head of state should be at fixed intervals? Unprecedented, insane.
This is so incredibly stupid.
Polling shows a large majority support the monarchy.
Labour adopting this as policy is a great way to harm Labour’s own chances at the next GE.
Just put it on every national ballot.
Which MP do you vote for?
And you still cool with the royals or nah?
If you want to replace an a-political monarch as head of state then you need to come up with a method of ending up with a suitably a-political head of state before anything else. I’m not particularly in favour of a monarchy, but I really don’t want a vocal and inevitably partisan presidential system either.
_The monarchy attracts to itself the kind of sentimental loyalty which otherwise might to the leader of a faction. There is, therefore, far less danger under a constitutional monarchy of the people being carried away by a Hitler, a Mussolini or even a de Gaulle._
~ Clement Attlee
I’m not a royalist, nor am I a staunch republican, but this resonated with me when I heard it quoted by Rory Stewart last week.
How many here wish brexit had have been a referendum, instead of an executive change? I’d be all for it, once an interchangeable alternative to the Constitution was on the table. That’s where brexit fell short.
Alternatively, let’s have a referendum to abolish the incompetent and corrupt Tories and let the reasonably benevolent and level-headed King rule absolutely.
Mandatory retraining or retests for driving licences every 10 years would improve our quality of life a million times more than this idea.
But go and campaign against referendums across the border. Labour is such a fucking joke.
How long until politicians realise you can’t keep redoing votes because you don’t like the outcome, *cough cough Scotland cough cough*
I totally understand the perspective that the monarchy means our head of state is not a democratically elected entity.
However I feel the people who want to abolish the monarchy forget that would mean that our current head of state would be Liz Truss, and Boris previously. I wouldn’t vote for any politician to be head of state frankly. Currently we’re choosing between the best of a bad lot.
What call? It’s just the same bunch of far left tankie morons peddling their divisisve hypocritical anti establishment nonsense who have somehow deluded themselves into thinking they speak for the vast majority of the wider public using biased survery questions to reinforce it. They don’t, starve them of the oxygen of publicity and they’ll quickly fade back into obsurity where they belong.
History should tell us that you can’t just have a referendum to undo something without having a plan to replace it. That would be like voting on EU membership without having a plan for what happens of people want to leave. Regardless of your brexit stance I think we can all agree that the result was a total mess which could have been avoided.
So are we saying we want to develop concrete plans for what to replace the monarchy with every 10 years just in case the referendum goes that way? Or we want the possibility of constitutional chaos everyb10 years?
Or we could just accept that a democratically elected government should put this in their manifesto with a plan for the replacement and then win an election first.
Just curious, would there be a referendum to reinstate the monarchy, 10 years after the referendum to abolish them passed?
Does this journalist realise that any such vote would be massively in favour of the monarchy.
This is probably going to be unpopular but, can we please stop having referendums on such important things. I want the people who know how to run shit to run shit for a bit. It’s like going to the hospital, I don’t want to be involved, i want the surgeon/doctor/anaesthetist to be making the major decisions. Equally I don’t want kids to dictate their school syllabus, have input sure, but let’s keep it minor.
I have no idea what the consequences of doing this would be, I don’t think many people do, so can we just not fuck about with something that will represent such a drastic change for the country. Cos my bet… we’re gonna fuck it up
Why not just save a few pennies and chuck it at the bottom of the ballot during the general election