By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
You could hold a presidential election at the same time as a general election to keep the cost down. Candidates would have to be supported by signatories to stop their being a too larger number. I'm always amazed by the you'll end up with President Blair or President Farage argument, firstly if these people are so universally disliked how would they win? And secondly if by some miracle they did win you could vote them out next time. I realise that mine is a minority view but the essential point will always be that in a democracy leaders should be elected by the people.
An election for president at anytime would result in either a toady for the same party that won the previous GE (more likely if both elections at the same time) or more likely you might get somebody opposite to the governing party. The former would result in rubber stamping any thing the government puts forward as is the case with the Queen currently or in the latter holding up the governments business. An elected president must have power otherwise what is the point of being elected. Our current system has been around for a while now and Prime Ministers enjoy their power and I repeat they are not going to vote to reduce it.
Your point about leaders should be elected is valid but surely that only applies to political leaders those with power. The Queen is a ceremonial leader and as such represents the country but in reality has no political power
Yes you could. But it would be some awful politician like Michael Gove or <shivers> Nigel Farage. Who would be interested or impressed throughout the world at meeting either of them?
And then we’d have the cost of an election every four years. They would also all be establishment figures, who’ve enjoyed privilege throughout their lives as is most of our cabinet and (snort) man of the people, Donald Trump. It’s just easier to get publicity and to network if you come from existing privilege. They won’t have been trained the way our Royal family have to put duty and service first, so they won’t have the same ability to appear fascinated by the umpteenth display of traditional dancing or a factory in Scunthorpe.
Meanwhile as they haven’t already got their own castles they’d be the constant refurbishment of official residences as happens every time there is a new President acrosss the world. Which would cost a fortune. They’d be bound to accept inappropriate gifts, which would be an embarrassment.
We’d strip out a massive part of our national identity and tons of people get huge pleasure from watching and meeting the royal family.
A recent campaign on mental health by the young Royals was extremely well put together and reached a much more diverse range of people than any politician would because it wasn’t seen as lecturing in the same way.
I know it’s not a cool view, but I’m not remotely cool so that’s fine, but I enjoyed the wedding, loved the outfits, felt proud at seeing our country do something well that was watched by the world and felt happy seeing two people who obviously adore each other get married.
A common mistake made about Donald Trump, particularly so in Britain, he is reviled by the 'establishment'.
Oh yeah, didn't watch the wedding, know very little about the participants, but enjoy history and have no ill will toward the monarchy.
FWIW I'm with nix on this. I actually enjoyed, or rather was fascinated by the wedding, particularly Bishop Michael Curry's approach - "We're going to sit down, we gotta get y'all married!"
No other country can put on such an event in that spectacular setting. Some good looking women to ogle as well as LOL at others e.g Princess Royal in her dressing gown.
Anyway I enjoyed sipping some nicely chilled Nyetimber when taking breaks in my beautiful sunny garden. I reflected that after all, it was tons better than that dirge of a Cup Final later on.
A common mistake made about Donald Trump, particularly so in Britain, he is reviled by the 'establishment'.
Oh yeah, didn't watch the wedding, know very little about the participants, but enjoy history and have no ill will toward the monarchy.
[Post edited 20 May 2018 15:31]
He may be reviled by the establishment but he started his business with a one million dollar loan from his father. He is the richest President ever with a wealth of £3 billion. He went to a private University, followed by Ivy League Wharton. That doesn’t make him an average Joe. He clearly does, however, have a clever knack of appealing to the populist vote.
He may be reviled by the establishment but he started his business with a one million dollar loan from his father. He is the richest President ever with a wealth of £3 billion. He went to a private University, followed by Ivy League Wharton. That doesn’t make him an average Joe. He clearly does, however, have a clever knack of appealing to the populist vote.
He would be unusual in that he's become wealthy before becoming POTUS.
I'm unaware of any 'Chief Executive' who didn't attend a private university but, if any have, I'd guess they'd been in a specialist programme or military college. You don't need to have the tag 'Ivy League' attached to a school to have a 'privileged elitist' education, but it didn't seem to hurt President Obama.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
