Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The BRF is being modernized A LOT  (Read 26946 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jonathan

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 921

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3206


Life's hard being fabulous




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2013, 09:48:03 PM »

 Star

Thank you. I totally agree
Logged

Advice to my Brother on his wedding day

Never say

I know you do
I've had better
Did you say something
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2013, 09:54:57 PM »

If you have a President then there is no need for a Prime Minister so there is the Presidents residence and if the Queen is no longer Head of State then there is no need to pay for her employees. The Duchy monies could be placed back into the coffers as a benefit to the people.

Some fear change and some don't.
Logged
Jonathan

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 921

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3206


Life's hard being fabulous




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: January 26, 2013, 10:04:44 PM »

No Prime minister and yet a President! Even Russia doesn't have that.

I can't see the issue about the Dutchy money. The Queen needs some sort of income. No one works for nothing
Logged

Advice to my Brother on his wedding day

Never say

I know you do
I've had better
Did you say something
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #33 on: January 26, 2013, 10:32:19 PM »

In my scenario there would be no Queen so she would live off of what she has accumulated. Sorry if I did not make myself clear but if there is a President then there would be no need for another Head of State.

The USA has a President and no Prime Minister so it has been proven to be unnecessary to have both.
Logged
Jonathan

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 921

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3206


Life's hard being fabulous




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: January 26, 2013, 11:49:59 PM »

I thought the American's had some sort of speaker.

Also the President is a political creature.

I think it's all academic, we have a Queen and I think the system for right or wrong works better than any alternative.
Logged

Advice to my Brother on his wedding day

Never say

I know you do
I've had better
Did you say something
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #35 on: January 27, 2013, 12:22:41 AM »

Doesn't the people in most countries feel their system is the best? Ask an American and they will tell you theirs is the best etc. etc.
I admire the Queen & Prince Phillips years of dedication and she will be an almost impossible Monarch to follow for her heir.
Logged
luvcharles

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1356

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3653





Ignore
« Reply #36 on: January 27, 2013, 12:29:13 AM »

Many countries have both an elected Head of State and a Head of Government - particularly those that don't have a political Head of State but even many with one.

Not all Heads of State in republics have a political role but more of a figurehead role such as The Queen currently serves and Britain would hardly be likely to go the route of the US and give the President the powers that he has but would be more inclined to the Irish model with a President as Head of State and a Prime Minister as Head of Government.  The Irish President is basically a figurehead with some limited powers - much the same as The Queen has (although the powers are different but the idea is the same) while the day to day government is with the Prime Minister - called the Taoiseach in Ireland.

This was the model that was proposed for Australia in 1999 - an appointed President with the power of the government very much in the hands of the parliament while the president was to be a figurehead - and thus two houses needed - one for each in both Canberra and Sydney (I don't know if any other state has an official home for either the PM or the GG but I do know that Sydney has).  It is the system that would require the smallest change for the system of government and allows the parliament to remain supreme with no one having the authority to overrule the parliament.

Logged
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #37 on: January 27, 2013, 12:52:27 AM »

A head of state who is no more than a figurehead seems like a waste of money to me.
Logged
freethespoon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3913

Offline Offline

Posts: 13928


Official TeaSpoon of Royal Dish. Aka TrollSpoon.




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: January 27, 2013, 12:58:52 AM »

A head of state who is no more than a figurehead seems like a waste of money to me.

Amen.
Logged


You can call me TrollSpoon.
luvcharles

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1356

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 3653





Ignore
« Reply #39 on: January 27, 2013, 01:35:44 AM »

And yet many countries like an apolitical Head of State who can represent all the people because that president doesn't have their views known on controversial political issues.

Personally I would hate to ever live in a country with a political Head of State simply because they could not represent everyone and because their views on controversial issues is well known.

I like having an apolitical Head of State - one who isn't criticised when the government makes decisions I don't like - then I criticise the PM (or state Premier) but never the GG or state Governor who can thus represent the entire nation or state without excluding some people because of their known views.

Only in a dictatorship, or one party state, can a political president truly represent all the people because there is no opposition to the views of the president allowed.  

There is a very old saying which sums up the beauty of an apolitical Head of State although this does relate specifically to the British monarch it can apply to others as well:  When things go badly people blame the government but when things go well people cheer the King.
Logged
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #40 on: January 27, 2013, 01:46:57 AM »

Everyone has their own views on situations and even if they are apolitical as a head of state they make their views known to the government entities so they can't represent all the people either they are just pretending to.

They don't hold elections trying to find someone to represent everyone but to find the person who represents the majority. People have differing opinions so no one can possibly represent everyone's views unless they are lying to some.
Logged
freethespoon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3913

Offline Offline

Posts: 13928


Official TeaSpoon of Royal Dish. Aka TrollSpoon.




Ignore
« Reply #41 on: January 27, 2013, 01:59:43 AM »

Everyone has their own views on situations and even if they are apolitical as a head of state they make their views known to the government entities so they can't represent all the people either they are just pretending to.

They don't hold elections trying to find someone to represent everyone but to find the person who represents the majority. People have differing opinions so no one can possibly represent everyone's views unless they are lying to some.

And at least there is robust accountability.  Democracy isn't perfect but - IMO - it's preferable to power inherited via vagina lottery.
Logged


You can call me TrollSpoon.
Cloaked

Muted
Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 748

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 5388





Ignore
« Reply #42 on: January 27, 2013, 02:08:43 AM »

I'm with you, Luvcharles.

I like the Head of State to be apolitical - quite apart from politics - an ambassador for the people - who represents underprivileged and unpopular causes as well as the majority - they are not held to any particular party line yet they are predictably traditional and do small and large works in the community and abroad.  They don't have to seem fashionable or try to win our vote every four years.  They campaign for the environment, the poor and needy and have the power to over see that our elected leader(and most powerful) representative is elected under proper democratic process.  
I don't like our representative abroad to always be our elected political leader.  I love having both.  I see a role for both.

I like the leader of our Government to be called the Prime Minister.  Maybe because I am used to it.  I think that it is true that we come to like our own system of government.
I would hate to have a President - that would be too American for me and not in keeping with our history of using the Westminster System of Government.  When someone says, "The President" I always assume it refers to the President of the United States - a very important World political figure.  "The President" would never sound Australian enough to me; I am used to hearing "The Prime Minister" to describe our most powerful leader.
Logged
Crawler

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 248

Offline Offline

Posts: 975





Ignore
« Reply #43 on: January 27, 2013, 02:20:22 AM »

Quote
They campaign for the environment, the poor and needy and have the power to over see that our elected leader(and most powerful) representative is elected under proper democratic process.


This sounds real good but if it were put into action after all the centuries of having a Monarchy shouldn't all these problems be solved by now.
Logged
freethespoon

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 3913

Offline Offline

Posts: 13928


Official TeaSpoon of Royal Dish. Aka TrollSpoon.




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: January 27, 2013, 02:40:39 AM »

Quote
They campaign for the environment, the poor and needy and have the power to over see that our elected leader(and most powerful) representative is elected under proper democratic process.


This sounds real good but if it were put into action after all the centuries of having a Monarchy shouldn't all these problems be solved by now.

Thank you this is true.   Star

Either the monarchy is grossly ineffective at achieving its aim or - probably more accurately - the ruse of 'we work for the poor and needy' is designed to fool people into believing they serve a purpose beyond gouging the taxpayer.
Logged


You can call me TrollSpoon.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: