If the UK had President Cameron (god help us all) then we'd still have a similarly long speech, with a similar number of people in a similar place every year - much like the State of the Nation address in the USA. It's a function of Government to state what they plan in the upcoming year so debate about it can begin.
We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on.
The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.
In a way -- and I say this as an American -- I perceive that one possible advantage of the British monarchy (with its particular form and historical context) is that by concentrating the ceremonial roles of chief of state in a different person than the head of government -- and divorcing the former from the political process in a way which you don't have in systems that have the separation but choose both through conventional political means -- you divorce, to a degree, tribal patriotism and support for the nation from support from the current political leadership, and simultaneously remove the distancing (from the rest of society) effect that the ceremonial functions of chief of state has from the functional head of government.
Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)
That's a great point. You don't get the "I support our president because I'm a patriot" crap.
The other advantage is in breaking up gridlock. I kind of wanted a Queen during the government shutdown last year, so she could dissolve Congress and allow us to vote the lot of them out. I bet you they'd be a lot less likely to do things like that if they knew there could be a sudden election, right when public support is at its lowest.
I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I
think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian,
Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm
an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to
law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not
intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition
behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the
office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair
election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of
allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance,
individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of
it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of
them.
I agree that it's weird to swear allegiance to some person who inherited their spot. I didn't say I wanted a queen!
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
yep, the Queen is quite frugal in that matter. The cost of representation and the the perceived splendor aren't really correlated.
I've heard a few years ago that Hollande, to break with his predecessor Sarkozy, wanted to travel by train rather than by plane whenever possible, in order to look less costly for the French citizen. However it wasn't the case : a train is way more complex to secure than a plane.
Basically in order to secure a train, you need to put an agent at every junction/bridge/tunnel to look for saboteur or terrorist, whereas a plane can take off (resp. land) from (resp. on) a military airport (national airspace is being monitored anyway).
We probably wouldn't have a President Cameron , most republics separate the head of state from the head of parliament. The US system works differently altogether in this regard. We would probably have someone like Jeremy Clarkson as president.
Key difference I suppose is that President Hollande was elected. The French did not like Sarkozy anymore so they kicked him out at the last election. Bit more accountable that way, and it's not possible that you would be stuck with the same president for decades unlike monarchs.
Comments
If the UK had President Cameron (god help us all) then we'd still have a similarly long speech, with a similar number of people in a similar place every year - much like the State of the Nation address in the USA. It's a function of Government to state what they plan in the upcoming year so debate about it can begin.
We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on.
The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.
In a way -- and I say this as an American -- I perceive that one possible advantage of the British monarchy (with its particular form and historical context) is that by concentrating the ceremonial roles of chief of state in a different person than the head of government -- and divorcing the former from the political process in a way which you don't have in systems that have the separation but choose both through conventional political means -- you divorce, to a degree, tribal patriotism and support for the nation from support from the current political leadership, and simultaneously remove the distancing (from the rest of society) effect that the ceremonial functions of chief of state has from the functional head of government.
Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)
That's a great point. You don't get the "I support our president because I'm a patriot" crap.
The other advantage is in breaking up gridlock. I kind of wanted a Queen during the government shutdown last year, so she could dissolve Congress and allow us to vote the lot of them out. I bet you they'd be a lot less likely to do things like that if they knew there could be a sudden election, right when public support is at its lowest.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_...
But you do get haplotype worship.
I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian, Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance, individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of them.
I agree that it's weird to swear allegiance to some person who inherited their spot. I didn't say I wanted a queen!
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/
yep, the Queen is quite frugal in that matter. The cost of representation and the the perceived splendor aren't really correlated.
I've heard a few years ago that Hollande, to break with his predecessor Sarkozy, wanted to travel by train rather than by plane whenever possible, in order to look less costly for the French citizen. However it wasn't the case : a train is way more complex to secure than a plane.
Basically in order to secure a train, you need to put an agent at every junction/bridge/tunnel to look for saboteur or terrorist, whereas a plane can take off (resp. land) from (resp. on) a military airport (national airspace is being monitored anyway).
We probably wouldn't have a President Cameron , most republics separate the head of state from the head of parliament. The US system works differently altogether in this regard. We would probably have someone like Jeremy Clarkson as president.
Key difference I suppose is that President Hollande was elected. The French did not like Sarkozy anymore so they kicked him out at the last election. Bit more accountable that way, and it's not possible that you would be stuck with the same president for decades unlike monarchs.