h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"You do really like Cromwellian (ancient) system don't you?"

I'll take Parliamentary democracy over middle ages feudalism if that's what you mean.

"I take your points about facts and values but has no relevance. Besides do you really trust the values of politicians?"

The point about facts and values is relevant. Do I trust the values of politicians? Depends on the politician. Politicans are sometimes dishonest, but more often than not they are honest. Manifesto pledges are kept far more often than they're broken. Elections are generally conducted fairly with an relatively impartial broadcast media and relatively responsible journalism. The current fuss about postal ballots is *absolutely nothing* compared to what goes on in some countries, though that doesn't excuse it.

I trust politicans a damn sight more than I trust the values of an absolute ruler who answers to no-one. Politicans can be removed - by being voted out, by being forced to resign after the media uncover scandal or misdemeanor. Remember that a free press helps keep politics straight. That wouldn't exist in a dictatorship. There is no easy way of removing a dictator.

"The £4m for Civil servants is NOT a typo. It represents the salaries as published for top CS', see my early (sums) post. That the total CS is far above this is beyond doubt, but why pay it and MP's?"

Not all MPs are ministers, if you recall. The job of some MPs is to be Ministers, the job of others is to hold them and their departments to account and to scrutinise legislation. Their role is to be an opposition. Take away MPs and there is no opposition to keep those in power on their toes. And that's a bad thing.

"You clearly have no faith in a Monarchy and dress it as some latter day moron into tree hugging and alternative medicine or whatever."

No, my point here was to try to show what could happen under monarchy, and indeed under all dictatorships. If you want to defend monarchy, you need a very good argument to show what would stop the kinds of behaviour I outlined. Even the benign version has serious consequences and the serious version just doesn't bear thinking about.

"Personally I would put far more trust in someone who's life depended on making the right decisions, than someone who's bank balance depended upon it!"

Are you seriously proposing that the fear of revolution is a suitable check and balance to keep a tyrant in check? History shows that it doesn't. History also shows that revolutions are violent, chaotic, disruptive and bloody. People get killed. And for what? To remove a tyrant that needn't have been there in the first place. What do you think would happen post-revolution? They'd go for democracy.

I would not trust someone whose life depends on making the right decisions, because the "right" decisions will be the ones that keep that person alive, not those which benefit me. A desparate person will do virtually anything - order the troops to fire on civilians, kidnap and tortue opponents, anything.

"Have you seriously looked at what we are currently stuck with?"

Have you seriously considered the alternative? I think you're lacking a sense of perspective about what dictatorships are really like and taking a lot of what we enjoy tody for granted.

What are we currently stuck with? Well, taking a historical perspective, it's rarely been so good. We're more prosperous than ever before (though it could be shared better), we have probably the least corrupt system of government (not a party political point) we've ever had. We live in a civil, ordered, peaceful, society where the standard of living and the opportunties we have would astonish our great grandparents. We have an extensive raft of freedoms, a free press, and we have the rule of law. We have traditions of democracy, fairness and an insistance on the importance of standards in public life. We have a successful public health and education system, and a system of social security. None of this could be guaranteed under monarchy.

In short, I don't think it's ever been better, historically speaking. If you do, I'd love to know when. I don't think things are perfect, but I think that people need a proper historical perspective and an awareness of what life is like in other countries and in this country in past times.

"All this stuff used to go on all the time in Eastern Europe....". Was this pre or post the Tzars"

Both. Under the Tsars, and under Communist dictatorships organised on the lines you suggest with government by technocrats, using much the same leadership style as the Tsars, and in particular the personality cult. Remember Ceausescu and Romania?

"Do you seriously believe that our politicians are THAT smart that they can be Minister for Defence this week, Education next week, Environment the week after and Transport the next, and do a PROPER job with FULL understanding of all that those departments involve?"

No, but I do believe they can - with time - learn their brief and set the political priorities.

Do you seriously believe that one person could adequately supervise (without interferening) and direct the whole funcitoning of government?
Do you seriously believe that that one person and those experts would stay honest with no opposition and no scrutiny?

"We would not have to abandon democracy, just sensibly modify it. You need to reread all the posts."

Well, if you recall I did ask you to summarise your argument, but you said that everything was in the first post. What kind of modified democracy to you have in mind, and how would it work?

"Clinging onto MP's just because they're there doesn't make them good or worthwhile. They represent VERY VERY poor value for money."

MPs are there to scrutinise and improve legislation, to represent the people, to form/maintain/dissolve the government, and to be accountable to the people. The cost, as I've said before, is a red herring.

I can't help thinking that this is some form of elaborate wind-up that I've fallen for....

Hi Otto,

I do not think that you have fallen for a windup, or anything else, your replies are well thought out, the brain is working well, and your contributions make good conversation.

At a time when many people are too idle to do, too lazy to think, too busy to make their own living or even walk smartly down the street, it is nice to see such energy of thought developing swiftly in so many directions, so keep on line, or in line if you wish.

Cheers H.

Ah no, I agree that this discussion is lovely.

Beauracrasies are certainly a great nod when compared to the csars and what-nots divine right factions, it is extremely efficient in solving a huge problem and delegating multi-tasks.

But [ahah, there's the word] but there's something else to consider. Promotion and the way we promote power to the officials who do their jobs. Are we raising them too far too fast, without allotting the proper time and discipline to handle what we put them with? Me thinks so.

Eastern traditions should be regarded in that. People are seeking material comforts, always had been, but more and more. Hope I wasn't too harsh.

Cheers.

Just to change the emphasis slightly - I'm a bit baffled about the royal dimension to the 'Royal Option'. You say that we are employing MPs and civil servants to do the same job (which I don't think is true by the way - they both have different roles), so let's get rid of one group (the MPs). Then you suggest that the monarch replaces the function of MPs.

Wouldn't we then have the monarch and the civil servants both doing the same job? If they are different roles, isn't it true that civil servants and MPs are doing different jobs too?

Another problem is the lack of any accountability in this model. I wouldn't be happy with a system which can't be modified democratically short of a full-scale popular uprising, and that seems to be the only way to counter the monarch's decision under the proposed system.

As a side note, there are a substantial minority of republicans in Britain - these people would be alienated from the start, regardless of the decisions the monarch makes.

The risk of a tyrant has been pointed out already, but what about the other risk? A pampered, incompetent, indecisive or lazy monarch?

To look at history, in 1770 the crowned heads of Europe included such strong and competent rulers as Frederick the Great in Prussia, Catherine the Great in Russia, Maria-Theresa in Austria, George III (still with his faculties) in England. By 1796, there was Frederick William in Prussia, Tsar Paul in Russia, and George III who'd lost his marbles in England. In the next generation Austria produced the remarkable Emperor Ferdinand - whose most notable proclamation was "I'm the Emperor and I demand dumplings!" In one generation countries turned from being ruled by strong intelligent monarchs to, in short, weak and indecisive cretins. That's another reason rule by hereditary monarch leaves too much to chance.

Another criticism is that it leaves no point of contact between the public and government. If I have concerns in my constituency I can see my MP - depending on the issue (and the MP) I might even get some satisfaction. Where would I turn under the royal option?

Otto, King(?), H,

Thanks, this is developing superbly. Before I answer most of the points raised (I hope)let me just make one simple point. For those who are so strongly defending MP's and so anti a royal option. After all of your favoured MP's and CS' debate etc etc etc, when does legislation become law? ONLY after it has received Royal Assent from the monarch! So in a wasteful form we already have the Royal Option that you so decry!

OK now to points raised. I have never suggested that the Royal Option as briefly described in my initial post was perfect, thats exactly why I posted it up for discussion! And Its working well so far.

Your democracy "in touch with government" comes through your local government (council) through the usual democratic process. The head of the local council (mayor) is elected from and by his peers. In effect he becomes your MP, but does NOT draw the huge salary etc of a current MP. Local councils represent us at "government" level continuously and consistantly so why (again!!!) do we need an MP as well?

The heads of departments (Ministers) would NOT be know nothing MP's but experts within their respective fields, Education (Scholar), Defence (Soldier, Sailor etc),Health (Physician), Treasury (Banker etc etc etc. This isn't quantum physics just sensible and logical, which is why it can't happen in our current system! Politicians just cannot operate on common sense.

It is these Ministers who's heads would be on the block (figuratively)if they screwed up their departments work and representations. The legal, administrative and legislative systems would all function as now but without the WASTE that are MP's!

BTW, "we've never had it so good", why does that sound familiar???
That I earn several thousand times more than the 5 guineas a year I would have in 1705 is NOT a testament to Cromwells Democratic Plan!!! And has NO relevance to this topic!

The 'Royal Option' we have at the minute consists basically of the Queen doing what she's told. It's a nod and a wink and a bit of lip service to history, and I'd expect to see it dropped before seeing it more deeply entrenched in the political system.

The idea of experts dealing with their specialised areas isn't really that objectionable. But who defines expertise, or who the minister should be? In any field you name, there are experts who have conflicting views and opinions. I'd suggest that an expert in many cases will have his or her own priorities, and the best way to deal with this is to have a neutral party to whom the evidence from varying shades of expert opinion can be made available.

Local councils have no power to represent us at national level. Are you talking about upgrading local councils to have 'parliamentary' powers in their own area? Or having Mayors lobbying expert ministers? Either way, as the costs of parliament decline, cost of local government would surely increase quite significantly.

Your Highness King Bomba,(of?)

Please allow me to address your points in reverse order.

"Local councils have no power to represent us at national level." Councils represent us on a daily basis asking for money for schools, hospitals, police, roads etc etc to the appropriate departments.

"The idea of experts dealing with their specialised areas isn't really that objectionable." A strange response if I may say! MInisters would be hired through an interview process etc as for any normal job. They would be hired by the Prime Minister, who in turn would be elected again from and by his/her peers who would be the elected Mayors of the country. Democracy goes local! There would or should be no real need for any significant increase in costs at local level. Besides there would be a windfall kitty of at least £80m after the dispensing of MP's.

The Monarch (current Queen)is well schooled and advised and apparently knows a great deal about a great many things. I am sure well capable of handling any matters presented for "Royal Assent" by anyone. I'm sure successors could be equally well schooled etc and the "free press" would still maintain pressure on a Monarch and their Ministers as they would Politicians.

Although my Royal Option does represent a paradime shift in our approach to politics and the running of the country its repercussions are not that radical. Unless you're an MP on the gravy train!

I have no political colour, I guess if I did it would be purple. I totally distrust ALL politicians and just can't see the logic of paying people huge amounts of money to "run" the country when they are barely capable of running a bath!

I agree with Bomba's responses on the subject of experts and the current role of Brenda, and I don't have anything to add to that. Also some very good historical points about weak rulers and mentally incapacitated ones.

Local councils decide on local issues, Parliament decides on international issues. Neither has the expertise to make the decisions of the other. If you want to conflate the two, krisdrum, you need to explain how they will cope with the increased workload (in terms of amount and in terms of scope - war in Iraq one day and traffic calming measures on Market Street the next??) and how exactly the Mayor will hold your dynastic dictator and his/her technocrats to account.

I rather suspect that what you'll end up with is only a slightly slimmed down version of what we already have, with very small cost savings and the expense of democracy.

"BTW, "we've never had it so good", why does that sound familiar???
That I earn several thousand times more than the 5 guineas a year I would have in 1705 is NOT a testament to Cromwells Democratic Plan!!! And has NO relevance to this topic!"

Sorry, but that's not an argument. It's true that we've never had it so good. Some Tory said this once and lost an election, but that's not a reason for thinking that the claim is false. If you don't believe that "we've never had it so good" when was it better??

It has every relevance to this topic because this beneficial state of affairs has not happened by accident, but as a direct result of the system of government that has been in place for the last hundred years or so. It's not an accident or a coincidence. What you're proposing is not some moderate cost-saving exercise that would have minimal effect on everyday life. It's something that has the potential to damage or destroy everything that is good and noble about our politics and our society.

My challenge to you is to explain how all of the good things that we enjoy now could continue under a dictatorship, and how a non or semi-democratic system could control a latter day Stalin, Caligula, or Ceausescu. It's a point that's been made a number of times, but which you haven're really addressed yet.

Elwyn_Centauri:
"Are we raising them [officials] too far too fast, without allotting the proper time and discipline to handle what we put them with? Me thinks so."

I'm not sure about this - it's difficult to tell from the outside, but I do think that our public life is remarkable for its lack of corruption and only occasion bursts of incompetence.

There's an old line about people geting the leaders they deserve.
While i'm certainly not sure that an absolute monarchy is the answer to our problems i can say that i think there mnust be some fundamental changes.
People don't trust politicians ~ they're right up there with estate agents and car second hand carsalesmen on the lists of so called dishonourable professions.
It used to be that serving your country whether in the services or in government was considered to be an honour and a privelage ~ it seems that today it's just another career choice.
Professional politicians do not have the necessary real life experience to make judgements in certain areas and we should not expect them to.
Central government has simply become too big and too powerful ~ the bureaucracy has taken over.

Is it too simple(or ridiculusly unrealistic)to suggest that someone (who will do their job fairly and well, of course)is given the job to go over the whole system of governing, take opinion poles etc,to get an idea of what works and what doesn't.Then start working on what needs changing, despite whichever party's in power.?
Could it work, or am I off in some ideal world?

Not sure it's possible ~ but if it works can i join you there?

Otto,

Your misplaced trust of politicians is touching and to regularly claim that there are "hardly any currupt politicians" emphasises this. Do you live in the UK? Read Pixels perfect analysis post (91) for a look at the real world!

Manifesto promises hardly ever broken? How about "no tax increases" (66), or "no top-up fees", tell the students they're imagining it. We will give ourselves any pay rise we want (kept), oops sorry that wasn't in the manifesto. I remember during I think the decade 1985-95 when nurses, the backbone of your precious NHS were forced to accept only a 3% wage rise because it was "government policy and good for the economy" and then MP's voted themselves a 15% rise. 3% of £10k =£300, 15% of £45k =£6750. Thats REAL fair democracy in action.

Whats this nonsense about MP's are qualified to make national judgements? Do they attend some secret school that gives these capabilities? What you're saying is some Joe Bloggs today is a nobody but just because he's elected tomorrow suddenly is imbued with wonderous powers. Well I'm sorry to spoil your illusion but this "Power of the Ring" thing only works in Hollywood! Where do you suppose MP's come from? They start off as Local Councillors scamming on a local level and progress to full level scamming when they become MP's!!!

Monarch? YES I did mean "off with their head". Hence the frequent reference to Charles 1st and the Tzars and a decision that their life depended upon as opposed to bank balance!

What we have today (never so good)is NOT a reflection on politics but on civilisation and society. There is NO reason why we should lose any of what we have now just because we get rid of MP's. WE will still have control but in a more sensible and cost effective way.

I am not the only one who see's much wrong with our system and the people in power. Did you see Sir Christopher Foster's (name?)interview? As a "political analyst" he identifies that among many things "the cabinet" which was (was!!!)intended to be part of the checks and balances of "the system" through "collective responsibility" NO longer exists.

On the subject of the system, if its so good blah blah blah, why does the PM want to devalue it and make it easier to manipulate by getting rid of the House of Lords? What was that about a Dictatorship?

"Your misplaced trust of politicians is touching and to regularly claim that there are "hardly any currupt politicians" emphasises this. Do you live in the UK? Read Pixels perfect analysis post (91) for a look at the real world!"

There is a difference between argument and assertion. This (and Pixel's post 91) just contain assertions. I don't neccesarily disagree with anything Pixel says, but you need to remember that if you want to convince anyone you need to have an argument and evidence. What evidence is there that lots of our politicans are corrupt? There *have* been corruption scandals, but they are generally small and infrequent, particularly when compared to other countries and to how things used to be. We have a system whereby MPs have to register their interests, and a big fuss is made over the slightest improprierty. Would there have been a fuss about Blunkett and the train ticket or 'Nannygate' in a corrupt political system? (to chose a recent example rather than a party political one).

As for broken promises, I never denied that manifesto promises are broken, but what I said (if you read back) is that "manifesto pledges are kept far more often than they're broken." My point is that no party consistently pledges to do one thing and then does something completely different across a wide range of issues - if you think otherwise, produce some argument or evidence. Isolated examples (however deplorable) are not sufficient evidence.

But the debate is shifting somewhat here. If you remember, you started with a suggestion about abandoning democracy for a hereditary dictatorship. I (among others) think this would be an absolute disaster and have brought forward arguments for this. I'm not here to defend all aspects of current practice or to argue that everything is rosy or that nothing can be improved. I do think there need to be substantial changes to the way that democracy works (including the introduction of proportional representation). Like Foster (who you quote) I am concerned with the erosion of cabinet authority, primus inter paries, and collective responsibiliy. It's the erosion of a check and balance, whereas you would do away with all checks and balances as far as I can tell (apart from bloody revolution). I don't see, therefore, how you can enlist Foster (or whoever it was) in your support.

But you won't win the argument for hereditary dictatorship just by pointing out what's wrong with how things are now. The easiest way to get a big cheer is to point out what's wrong with something in eloquent and emotive terms, but that's not a positive argument for anything, let alone tyranny. You still need to explain how the dictator will be held to account and controlled. A decent dictator would allow a free press, but a corrupt one wouldn't. And there would be nothing to stop him.

"Monarch? YES I did mean "off with their head". Hence the frequent reference to Charles 1st and the Tzars and a decision that their life depended upon as opposed to bank balance!"

I can only repeat my earlier arguments about why I wouldn't trust someone to make fair and rational decisions just because *their* life depends on it. I can also only repeat my earlier arguments about why revolution is not an effective way of changing governments and fear of revolution not an effective way of controlling them (post 81). A government in fear of revolution has two options - repression or concession. And history shows that they go for the former. Any responses to those arguments?

I'm glad that you now accept that things have never been better. I agree that this is to the great credit of many in society and many great individuals in all walks of life. But it seems extraordinary to me to argue that it happened by accident and completely independently of the political system. How do you explain that (in British history) the situation of each class has improved once it obtained the vote? Can you name any country in the world that has properly thrived without a democratic system of government? Where are the rich, free, and equal dicatorships? Now this isn't a conclusive argument (unprecedented things happen all the time), but it's a good reason for being cautious.

"On the subject of the system, if its so good blah blah blah, why does the PM want to devalue it and make it easier to manipulate by getting rid of the House of Lords? What was that about a Dictatorship?"

Now this genuinely puzzles me. Firstly, most people who want greater democracy want to get rid of the Lords and replacement with an elected second chamber. Secondly, if you're in favour of dictorship, shouldn't *you* be in favour of getting rid of the Lords? Thirdly, if you think that MPs are a waste of money and space, why do you think that the Lords is any different?

" What evidence is there that lots of our politicans are corrupt? There *have* been corruption scandals, but they are generally small and infrequent, particularly when compared to other countries and to how things used to be. We have a system whereby MPs have to register their interests, and a big fuss is made over the slightest improprierty. Would there have been a fuss about Blunkett and the train ticket or 'Nannygate' in a corrupt political system? (to chose a recent example rather than a party political one)."

My point wasn't that there had been evidence that there was wide spread corruption.
Rather that the Perception of politicians is that they are untrustworthy.I've heard them described to children that way ~ it's not about specific wrongdoings rather that the entire system has become almost synonymous with a lack of honour and a disrespect for the public.
The idea that being an Mp used to be an honour ~ it was not a career you worked towards but more a sacred duty to your country ~ it was about giving something back to society ~ it should not be the goal itself.

Otto,

"Would there have been a fuss about Blunkett and the train ticket or 'Nannygate' in a corrupt political system?" Surely you don't believe this all came to light because of the "system"!? As in any scenario the "wrong" people found out, then the proverbial hit the fan. Since when did honour, noble and politician belong in the same sentance?

"produce some argument or evidence. Isolated examples (however deplorable) are not sufficient evidence." I gave you 3 examples, just how many do I need before they aren't isolated???

"I don't see, therefore, how you can enlist Foster (or whoever it was) in your support." I only use Foster to demonstrate the huge shortcomings of a failing system!

"You still need to explain how the dictator will be held to account and controlled. A decent dictator would allow a free press, but a corrupt one wouldn't. And there would be nothing to stop him." Which part of; "Monarch? YES I did mean "off with their head". Hence the frequent reference to Charles 1st and the Tzars and a decision that their life depended upon as opposed to bank balance!", don't you understand??? Who said we would lose the "free press"? I wouldn't trust an MP even IF his life depended on it.

"A government in fear of revolution has two options - repression or concession. And history shows that they go for the former. Any responses to those arguments?" Looked at Libya/Lebanon lately???

You still haven't explained where MP's obtain/acquire/are imbued with their special abilities? (apart from the Ring theory") Like I said why trust someone to run a country when they are barely capable of running a bath!

As for argument and reason, all you have to offer is the call that a Monarch " may be nasty or stupid or both". Caution yes, but thats NO argument for not thinking it through and trying it. For the record I have never suggested a "dictatorship" although I can recognise one when I'm living in it!

Has anyone else out there recognised the SPOOKY relationship between Orwell's "1984" and our selling the Iraqis arms in the 1980's and waring with them less than 10 years later???

'Who said we would lose the "free press"?'

You didn't, but since you wouldn't have a lot of say under the proposed system, it's not your call.

I don't think the prospect of beheading is enough of a safeguard. How many abuses can someone get away with before enciting revolution? Quite a lot! Incidentally, any government can be overthrown and have its head executed - it could happen to a prime minister as much as a king. Since you think the current system is so corrupt yet hasn't precipitated a revolution, it makes me wonder why it is such a good safeguard.


"You still haven't explained where MP's obtain/acquire/are imbued with their special abilities?" MPs don't have special abilities. They are human beings - the same goes for kings and queens.

We can give a king or queen a good education, but when all's said and done, the ability of the other 60 million people in the country is being prevented from the highest layer of government just because they didn't have the 'right' parents.

"As for argument and reason, all you have to offer is the call that a Monarch " may be nasty or stupid or both". Caution yes, but thats NO argument for not thinking it through and trying it."

It has been tried, in very many countries. It's now a lot less common because in so many countries people rejected it - went for the "off with the head" correctional procedure you advise. They wanted something else. Any alternative to the current system would need to offer more than this before many people supported it.

I'm not sure that there's much point in continuing this discussion if all you're going to do is to repeat the same slogans without any actual evidence or argument to back them up, nor read or respond sensibly to what other people are posting. But one more try....

My point about the Blunkett case is that under a properly corrupt system a powerful politican can do more or less what he or she likes. Under a corrupt system no-one makes a fuss if people embezzle large sums of money, take bribes, or indulge in nepotism. In a predominantly honest system, people do make a fuss over much smaller issues and it becomes front page news for days.

"produce some argument or evidence. Isolated examples (however deplorable) are not sufficient evidence." I gave you 3 examples, just how many do I need before they aren't isolated???

Two examples of broken manifesto commitments, and a third of something that was done that was not in the manifesto. I repeat what I said - look back over the manifestos of the winners and you'll see that a comfortable majority of promises either were implemented or that there were attempts to implement.

"You still need to explain how the dictator will be held to account and controlled. A decent dictator would allow a free press, but a corrupt one wouldn't. And there would be nothing to stop him." Which part of; "Monarch? YES I did mean "off with their head". Hence the frequent reference to Charles 1st and the Tzars and a decision that their life depended upon as opposed to bank balance!", don't you understand??? Who said we would lose the "free press"? I wouldn't trust an MP even IF his life depended on it."

1) Why do you think that fear of revolution will be enough to make a monarch behave decently, when there are so many historical examples to the contrary? I've asked this several times now.

2) A monarch could ban the free press, or close down particular newspapers, or force owners to sack individual journalists who don't toe the line, or threaten journalists with imprisonment or worse. What would stop the monarch doing this? Fear of revolution? How bad do you think things would have to get before people would be angry enough to revolt in sufficient numbers and with sufficient courage (against armed troops)?

3) I don't understand why you don't trust MPs, yet you would trust a monarch.

"A government in fear of revolution has two options - repression or concession. And history shows that they go for the former. Any responses to those arguments?" Looked at Libya/Lebanon lately???

Not really - they've both been out of the news. Last I heard, Libya was still a dictatorship and a pariah state and Lebanon was split between nationalist and pro-Syrian factions. I don't want to live in either, thanks. What's your point?

"You still haven't explained where MP's obtain/acquire/are imbued with their special abilities? (apart from the Ring theory") Like I said why trust someone to run a country when they are barely capable of running a bath!"

MPs are generally people who have had at least one successful career before going into politics. I don't think that they have supernatural abilities, but they have shown sufficient ability to convince their party selection panel to choose them as their candidate from many applicants, and convinced the electorate that they are worthy of their vote. There is a lot of competition to be an MP, and the people who get there are no mugs. But there would be no competition to be heir to the throne - if you're lucky, fine, but if not you end up with an idiot as leader. Another problem with monarchy is what to do with very young or very old monarchs who aren't up to the job. Not a problem with MPs.

"As for argument and reason, all you have to offer is the call that a Monarch " may be nasty or stupid or both". Caution yes, but thats NO argument for not thinking it through and trying it. For the record I have never suggested a "dictatorship" although I can recognise one when I'm living in it! "

1) 'Nasty' doesn't do it justice. Have you really thought about what living under a tyrannical monarch would be like, and how many people might have to die to bring about a revolution, even if it were possible?

2) Why isn't your 'monarch' a dictator? You've suggested putting one person in sole charge. That sounds like a dictator. You did mention some democratic safeguard, but you haven't explained what that would look like.

3) We are not living in a dictatorship. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand what 'dictatorship' means or doesn't understand the UK.

"Has anyone else out there recognised the SPOOKY relationship between Orwell's "1984" and our selling the Iraqis arms in the 1980's and waring with them less than 10 years later???"

Not sure how this is relevant. As I said before, I'm not defending the current system, but I don't see any obvious relationship spooky or otherwise. There's a moment in the book where the 'enemy' changes and no-one 'notices', but a lot of people did notice about Iraq. But 1984 is a good starting point for thinking about what a dictatorship could be like. Personally I don't think that control on such a scale as Orwell envisaged would be possible, but that's just detail.