Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Re Duty to the Queen

  1. #31
    The unpaid help ASLChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,236
    Thanks
    896
    Thanked 627 Times in 417 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by roger-uk View Post
    Thats better than having a waste of space minority elected clown for Prime Minster
    Do you not understand our electoral system?
    Chris Hawes, District Media Manager, Watford North Scout District and Watford Scouts; Group Treasurer and Webmaster, 9th North Watford Scout Group.
    Web designer of free Scouting templates, Scouting Themes 4 WordPress.

    Social media
    Twitter: @WNScouts / @9NWScouts
    Facebook: /WNScouts
    Instagram: @WNScouts

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,550
    Thanks
    427
    Thanked 1,066 Times in 632 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mallah View Post
    Wow, that paragraph could be found at the start of the removal of God from the promise debate! De Ja Vue?
    Indeed.

  3. #33
    The unpaid help ASLChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,236
    Thanks
    896
    Thanked 627 Times in 417 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mallah View Post
    Wow, that paragraph could be found at the start of the removal of God from the promise debate! De Ja Vue?
    The Queen is a fact, not subject to belief.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by CambridgeSkip View Post
    Personally I'm a fan of the Irish system. The President there has very little power with most of it resting with the Oireachtas (The Irish equivalent of Parliament) and Prime Minister. The powers of the president are not that much greater than that of the Queen here and they effectively act as a chief ambasador. As I understand it the only real power they have that our monarch doesn't is;

    In certain circumstances refer a bill passed by Oireachtas to a referendum before passing it.
    Summon both houses of the Oireachtas to meet if for some reason they deem in necessary and they have not met.
    Unlike our monarch they represent Ireland in international affairs BUT when doing so act on the instructions of the Prime Minister. Bit like a barrister acting on instructions from a solicitor

    In terms of expense the actual cost of holding an election is actually quite minimal. Print and distribute ballot papers. Hire church halls and the like as polling stations. Most of the staff are volunteers. How much the candidates spend on campaigning is their problem, not that of the taxpayer!

    As it happens I would also like to see a directly elected Prime Minister, ditto the other senior members of the cabinet. Chancellor, deputy PM, Home, foreign, Defence, Health and Education secretaries. I don't think our current constitution has enough separation of the executive and legislative bodies. It also means that if the PM happens to be your local MP you don't get the proper service that I would expect from my local MP. How many constituency surgeries do you think the PM has time to run? But that's another story.
    Do you call 113 million "quite minimal"? This is public expenditure (ie. our money), not that spent by political parties.

    To directly elect specific government roles is both absurd and unworkable - what if the Chancellor wanted to save money but the Health Secretary wanted to spend tons more? Both have the same democratic mandate but have no need to work together.

    IMHO our political system is the least-worst version of democracy available - not perfect, but better than all the other options!
    Chris Hawes, District Media Manager, Watford North Scout District and Watford Scouts; Group Treasurer and Webmaster, 9th North Watford Scout Group.
    Web designer of free Scouting templates, Scouting Themes 4 WordPress.

    Social media
    Twitter: @WNScouts / @9NWScouts
    Facebook: /WNScouts
    Instagram: @WNScouts

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    4,217
    Thanks
    1,509
    Thanked 1,165 Times in 846 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Williams View Post
    Is it? I really don't feel it.
    Perhaps its subjective, I suppose it also depends where you do your reading.

    I don't really feel that strongly about it in any case, it is what it is. I will admit to becoming quite vexed if the BBC start going on about royal babies a bit too much, the tone news readers tend to adopt gives me the boak.


  5. #35
    Senior Member Mallah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,224
    Thanks
    83
    Thanked 322 Times in 230 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ASLChris View Post
    The Queen is a fact, not subject to belief.
    Irrelevant. It's the start of an argument to change the promise (again) It was used by those who didn't want the change. Some of us warned of the creep - looks like we may be right.

    He who receives a good turn should never forget it; he who does one should never remember it.

  6. #36
    Senior Member CambridgeSkip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    2,126
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 860 Times in 364 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ASLChris View Post
    The Queen is a fact, not subject to belief.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Do you call 113 million "quite minimal"? This is public expenditure (ie. our money), not that spent by political parties.

    To directly elect specific government roles is both absurd and unworkable - what if the Chancellor wanted to save money but the Health Secretary wanted to spend tons more? Both have the same democratic mandate but have no need to work together.

    IMHO our political system is the least-worst version of democracy available - not perfect, but better than all the other options!
    actually yes, I do consider it minimal.

    Let's say, for example, that we adopted the Irish system and had a president elected every 7 years. That 113 million equates to 16 million of government expenditure per year. The Government goes through something like 650 billion a year. So at approx. 0.0025% of annual government expenditure I would say yes, minimal.

    In terms of your example of the health sec and chancellor being at odds, well that boils down to parliament. Parliament makes the laws within which the executive governs. That is the case now and would be the case with directly elected senior ministers. Parliament remains sovereign.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    9,972
    Thanks
    2,654
    Thanked 1,995 Times in 1,261 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mallah View Post
    Irrelevant. It's the start of an argument to change the promise (again) It was used by those who didn't want the change. Some of us warned of the creep - looks like we may be right.
    The creep to becoming an ever more inclusive organisation? As that is what it is.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,628
    Thanks
    418
    Thanked 2,918 Times in 1,586 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mallah View Post
    Wow, that paragraph could be found at the start of the removal of God from the promise debate! De Ja Vue?
    The difference is that the Queen is real and the God things was a question of faith.

    But I doubt that as many people feel moved by republicanism as they did by religion, so this is probably not going anywhere for the duration of the Queen's reign.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  9. #39
    The unpaid help ASLChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,236
    Thanks
    896
    Thanked 627 Times in 417 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mallah View Post
    Irrelevant. It's the start of an argument to change the promise (again) It was used by those who didn't want the change. Some of us warned of the creep - looks like we may be right.

    It is entirely relevant - the political structure of our country is fact; religious belief is subject to opinion.
    Chris Hawes, District Media Manager, Watford North Scout District and Watford Scouts; Group Treasurer and Webmaster, 9th North Watford Scout Group.
    Web designer of free Scouting templates, Scouting Themes 4 WordPress.

    Social media
    Twitter: @WNScouts / @9NWScouts
    Facebook: /WNScouts
    Instagram: @WNScouts

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    East Devon
    Posts
    1,188
    Thanks
    95
    Thanked 419 Times in 218 Posts
    Didn't somebody say once, "the purpose of the monarchy is not the power that the monarchy has, but the power that it denies to others".

    No squabbling over the minor advantage that getting your man elected as President (or Supreme Court Judge) might bring. And having seen three coups d'etat first hand, and the consequences, I'm rather pleased that our army is loyal to the Queen.
    John Russell
    ex-CSL now ACSL 1st Pinhoe Exeter Devon
    Cubs don't care how much you know, but they need to know how much you care.

  11. #41
    Senior Member CambridgeSkip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    2,126
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 860 Times in 364 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ASLChris View Post
    It is entirely relevant - the political structure of our country is fact; religious belief is subject to opinion.
    Now on that point I do agree with Chris! Which is why, despite my republican credentials, I would like to see the promise stay it is.

  12. #42
    The unpaid help ASLChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,236
    Thanks
    896
    Thanked 627 Times in 417 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CambridgeSkip View Post
    actually yes, I do consider it minimal.

    Let's say, for example, that we adopted the Irish system and had a president elected every 7 years. That 113 million equates to 16 million of government expenditure per year. The Government goes through something like 650 billion a year. So at approx. 0.0025% of annual government expenditure I would say yes, minimal.

    Of course, that's just the election - not to mention everything else a President would need - salary, expenses, staff... You might consider it minimal; I consider it a waste of my money.

    In terms of your example of the health sec and chancellor being at odds, well that boils down to parliament. Parliament makes the laws within which the executive governs. That is the case now and would be the case with directly elected senior ministers. Parliament remains sovereign.
    That makes no sense whatsoever. It would either result in absolute chaos or absolute inaction - in any case, with no coherent government strategy even possible.
    Chris Hawes, District Media Manager, Watford North Scout District and Watford Scouts; Group Treasurer and Webmaster, 9th North Watford Scout Group.
    Web designer of free Scouting templates, Scouting Themes 4 WordPress.

    Social media
    Twitter: @WNScouts / @9NWScouts
    Facebook: /WNScouts
    Instagram: @WNScouts

  13. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lisburn
    Posts
    664
    Thanks
    20
    Thanked 126 Times in 85 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CambridgeSkip View Post
    actually yes, I do consider it minimal.

    Let's say, for example, that we adopted the Irish system and had a president elected every 7 years. That 113 million equates to 16 million of government expenditure per year. The Government goes through something like 650 billion a year. So at approx. 0.0025% of annual government expenditure I would say yes, minimal.

    In terms of your example of the health sec and chancellor being at odds, well that boils down to parliament. Parliament makes the laws within which the executive governs. That is the case now and would be the case with directly elected senior ministers. Parliament remains sovereign.
    I suspect any president elected in the uk would likely have a political agenda which may well be at odds wiith the governments.

    As for electing government ministers directly, we have something like that in NI and frankly it's a mess (not helped by the quality of mlas we have). Departments tend to get run as each party wants and we even have the ridiculous situation of one department taking another to court.

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Big George For This Useful Post:

    ASLChris (16-02-2016)

  15. #44
    Senior Member alirainsbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    690
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 236 Times in 144 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kev View Post
    I don't think so but then nobody elected Gordon Brown as PM.
    Nobody directly elects the Prime Minister. The closest you get is when the party in majority change their leader between elections, and thus the party members are effectively electing the Prime Minister - see John Major and Gordon Brown in recent times.
    CSL 1st Marple Bradshaw Cubs

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to alirainsbury For This Useful Post:

    ASLChris (16-02-2016),Neil Williams (16-02-2016)

  17. #45
    Senior Member CambridgeSkip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    2,126
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked 860 Times in 364 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ASLChris View Post
    Of course, that's just the election - not to mention everything else a President would need - salary, expenses, staff... You might consider it minimal; I consider it a waste of my money.



    That makes no sense whatsoever. It would either result in absolute chaos or absolute inaction - in any case, with no coherent government strategy even possible.
    The president's expenses, particularly on the Irish model, need be no more than those of the current monarch who themselves have staff, accommodation, travel expenses etc, all met out of taxpayers money. The only thing that would change financially is the cost of their election which, as I said, is pretty minimal when seen in the context of government expenditure.

    In terms of government you would of course need some kind of legal structure within which the executive operate, put in place by parliament. It needn't be complex. It could be something like the Prime Minister has final say or done on a vote by the cabinet or parliament itself.

Similar Threads

  1. [Answered] Duty to queen
    By tyke in forum UK Chief Commissioner Questions (CLOSED)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16-02-2016, 02:21 PM
  2. Duty to the Queen or
    By Tony Ransley in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 09-11-2015, 05:11 PM
  3. Duty to the Queen
    By ianw in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 23-03-2015, 01:12 PM
  4. Duty to God in the promise
    By meboo in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 114
    Last Post: 15-01-2011, 08:58 PM
  5. Duty
    By gregharewood in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 24-11-2009, 04:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •