It’s illegal to view crime in the UK

That’s a very novel point.

One that only adds to mystery of the stance.

a reply to: quintessentone

a reply to: Freeborn

Not a chance, years ago he said he wanted to be the defender of all faiths not just the church of england....I saw also that Welby came out saying that the rioters aren't christian.

originally posted by: 5thHead

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

He has no real power.

You have got to be kidding. 🙄

Nah it's UK law and constitution - all their powers apart from ceremonial roles of openning and closing Parliament have long since been transfered over the Parliament and elected Government in the UK over the last few hundred years - 'the monarch reigns but does not rule' so we get to have a Head of State who is apolitical and can unite the country in times of need and prevent war when all political and diplomatic channels have failed.

If they tried to interfere with politics or refused to carry out acts of Parliament they'd be otherthrown and beheaded before breaksfast.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: SprocketUK

Monarchs on odd occasions have let their opinions be known on certain subjects to Prime Minister's and have even very occasionally sought to influence government policy....with incredibly little success.
The ruling Monarch has no real power, which is as it should be.

As a bit of an aside; I know it won't happen, but I wonder what would happen if Charles came out in support of all those expressing concerns about unfettered immigration and its effects on British culture and society?

would you all be better under a king again? PROLLY. If they operated as a president with a VETO.

a reply to: yuppa

I look at Presidents like Biden, Trump, Macron, Merkel, Putin etc and I think; "Do we really need something similar"....and the answer is No.

We sure as hell do need some sort of urgent reform because the party political system we have at present is obviously no longer fit-for-purpose.

a reply to: Freeborn

President Blair, Starmer, or, please no, Truss?!!!

a reply to: Freeborn

Yeah there's hardly any support for a Republic or Presidential system in the UK as they only add a whole new layer of beauracracy and prevent any meaningful change from taking place - scrapping first past the post electoral system and replacing it with alternative vote or proportional representation has been long overdue though.

a reply to: bastion

Maybe, but it's a recipe for weak cobbled together coalitions.

"None of the above" for me.

a reply to: bastion


Uhhhhh.... So, it sounds like we agree. For the most part.

You're saying he lets people run the country until it's time for him to step in and set things straight.

Kind of like the Democrats. They let you vote for whoever you want but if you choose wrong they'll just correct you and put in whoever they want.

Am I wrong when I say most of the big wig politicians in the UK are blood relatives to the king ? Isn't Borris Johnson related to the crown

I mean forget the UK just look at the kings realm of Canada. Trudeau was literally born in Canadas version of the white house. He was groomed from birth to be "in charge".; he wouldn't be there if the king didn't want him there.

All leaders delegate power and responsibilities to others. The king is wise to stay in the background and pretend he isn't the head honcho. But he is.

Maybe a thread about it could be started at some point. I think it could be an interesting discussion and I'm sure I'd learn a lot

a reply to: bastion

I think first-past-the-post is fair enough I suppose when you only have two major parties contesting the vote but if the recent election is anything to go by that has changed with other parties also receiving a large percentage of the popular vote.

I also think the party system itself needs urgent reform, possibly even doing away with party affiliation and all MP's standing as Independents with an increased onus on representing constituents interests and wishes.

Certainly the party whip system should be abolished; elected members should be voting in accordance with constituents wishes and the members own beliefs rather than the interests and wishes of their respective parties.

Every vote in The Commons should be a free vote.

The Upper House should primarily be an elected assembly with a number of seats set aside for people of Merit - specifically NOT politicians or party donors etc.