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

It is broken.

Totalitarianism.
Or perhaps a benevolent Dictator. Democracy is great but it is more comfortable to be apathetic.

Remember we only have a democracy for 1 day in every 1461.
(365 * 4 plus 29 Feb)

I think the problem with the Monarchy in Oz/Nz is that the Queen don't live there. You can give all the arguments about being the final arbiter of democratic whatsits (ala this Whitlam thing) but that has nothing to do with Elizabeth Regina herself. She didn't go to Aus. and actively tell the PM to sort his life out, did she? How much, if any, input did she have?
I personally reckon that the Queen is good for this very job, but I can see why it would annoy you when someone half a world away has the power to dissolve your government, and if she doesn't actually do the job, why keep her?

Anyone read "The Queen and I" by Sue Townsend? Sadly, not so simple...

Munchkin, it's a little more complicated than that.

The Governor General, in all the old Westminster-style parliamentary democrocies, was once appointed by the monarch of the day but is now appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.

This person has the delegated powers of the monarch. In days gone by, the appointee was usually some second-rater from Britain's House of Lords. Now the person is usually some retired judge or church leader born in the country they are appointed to.

Throughout the Whitlam crisis the Queen was kept fully informed. She could have stopped the sacking if she believed it was the correct thing to do. The Queen is the Governor General's boss. They answer to her not the Prime Minister.

Before a law goes into effect it has to be signed by the Governor General. It's the same in Britain. Laws have to signed by the Queen.

In this day and age for unelected people to have these enormous "reserve" powers strikes me as quite bizarre.

Whilst it is strange to invest these powers in an unelected body, it does have its advantages; the Queen is (supposedly) a non-political body, and in true political crises it can really be quite helpful to have such a figure.

While not quite a political crisis, in Australia last year things got a bit tetchy between the Governor General and the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister wanted to open the Olympic Games in Sydney. He was not impressed when it was pointed out that the rules say the Games have to be opened by the Head of State.

It was deemed not appropriate for the Queen to visit because the country was about to vote on whether or not to become a republic.

In steps the Governor General to open the Games. During the Closing Ceremony (if I remember correctly) the GG, obviously drunk, stuffed up his speech and dropped his notes. Prince Phillip would have been proud of him

>>What ever happened to the priciple that anyone capable of getting the job should on no account be allowed to do it?<<

I was thinking more along the lines of Trcia McMillian's discussion with Gail Andrews. "...What's that strange thing you British play? ... Parlimentatry democaracy. The rules just kind of got there. They don't make any kind of sense except in terms of themselves. But when you start to to exercise those rules, all sorts of processes start to happen and you start to find out all sorts of stuff about people."

Personally, any kind of like anything that limits the powers of government. Heck, if the queen wants to disolve Congress and make them face election, I say let her.

The Queen can't dissolve congress, because we don't have one.

I meant the American Congress.

But everyone knows that it is the Mice that run everything. Or so I was told.

The Republicans no longer control the Senate! Hooray!...

The Queen better stay out of american politics.

"Civil list has been pared to the bone" - maybe (and I stress maybe) so, but why should there be one at all? They are filthy rich as it is.

One thing that sticks in my craw is that their travel is paid for by the tax payer if they are on official business. It is an understatement to say that the definition of "official business" in this context can be interpretd somewhat imaginatively; for example, Prince Andrew recently hired an RAF jet to take him to the Open Golf Tournament - cost £20,000 to the taxpayer - apparently attendance at major sporting events is "official business". So is travel between palaces - costing the taxpayer £20-£30,000 a go.

If it wasn't for the monarchy and associated relics who would want to visit Britain, a country well past its use-by date.

Well, some people like rain...

Are you saying that people only visit England on the off-chance they might see the Queen? That tourists only visit countries that have a monarchy? What exactly are you saying here?

I respectfully suggest that you are talking codswallop.

If Britain was a food product it would carry a stamp saying "Best before 1914".

You are being provocative, aren't you?

Poor Britain.

Though I've always thought we took a distinct turn for the worse as soon an Q Vic. took the throne...

A similar thing happened in America when Dubbya took over. I guess that means the good ol' USA's best days are behind them as well.

USA 1776-2001 RIP