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

The Secretary General. There already is one, so no extra effort required.

The Secretary General may be shall we say the Chief Executive, in much the same way that Tony Blair is the Chief Exec of the UK, but the Chairperson of both bodies is the Queen.

This degree of continuity is incredibly useful if you think it through.

Besides, exactly how much did the major politcal parties in the US spend during their respective presidential campaigns? And you think having a president would save money?

No, a President strikes me as a terrible waste of money, especially if you are getting rid of the Royals for that very reason (which I think is a bad reason in the first place, but that is another story). I reckon you should simply scrap that whole level (if you are going to change things) and let the Leader of the Largest party be the Prime Minister be the President be the Chief Executive. One job, one person, one salary, no extra elections.

"Tony Blair is the Chief Exec of the UK"

No he is Not - The Queen is C.E.O. of the UK P.L.C.

But then you end up with the possibility of someone like say Michael Portillo becoming leader of the country through an internal party leadership election and not through a General Election. Tricky.

My take on this is very much a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sort of thing.

The royals may not be paragons of virtue, they may have some seriously dodgy skeletons in their closets, they may have unfashionable or even down right idiotic opinions, but the alternatives are frightening.

Do we really want Tony to set up a (yes another) QUANGO, loaded with party contributors, cronies and other sycophants, to take 5 years to decide that what we (the electorate) want is something that Tony and his (unelected) advisors told them to say when the QUANGO was originally set up?

Electoral and constitutional reform may well be a good thing but can we just do it a piece at a time? Let's work our way through reforming the House of Lords before making any other wholesale changes.

Yep, I agree with you there Madent. I just feel that if we (in the future) do get rid of the Royals, why do we have to have a President, when the Prime Minister's job seems so close already.

Tony Blair is Prime Minister and holds executive authority in the the UK (like a Chief Exec or Managing Director). The Queen ratifies all of Tony's (and the government's) decisions (like the Chairperson of a plc) during meetings of the Privy Council (bit like a board meeting really).

Parliament is the legislative
The Crown is the Executive.

The Crown disposes its executive authority through the Privy Council; a key sub-committee of the Privy Council is the Cabinet. It is only Tradition that Cabinet positions go to the majority party in the Commons, the Queen is free to appoint whom ever she wishes.

Of course she is ....

I didn’t say there wouldn’t be a revelation if she tried, but she is free to try

oop's damm spell checkers er... revolution ?

The similarity is still striking.

The Queen (like a Chairperson) disposes her (their) executive authority through the Privy Council (the board). The PM (CEO or MD), who holds most of this authority on the Queen's behalf, selects the Cabinet (executive Directors?) who are then ratified by the Queen. The Privy Council comprises others (non-executive directors) which are not appointed by the PM.

The electorate (shareholders) have a General Election (AGM) every few years and can ask for a new PM.

Whether a Chairperson survives in corporate life depends on how much of a role they play in running the business. If they keep their head down and go along with the wishes of the shareholders they are fairly safe. The MD on the otherhand can be replaced just as soon as things start to turn sour.

I think it's a valid analogy.

not really as we don't get to elect the PM of cabinet ministers - unlike shareholders that do get to elect their MD & Directors.

of = or

"It's interesting, but realistically what is wrong with a monarch?"

My main problem is that I don't like the Windsors. Not individually, I'm sure some of them are very nice, just what they represent. They strike me as riddled with snobbery and delusions of grandure. Throwing public money at them and parading them around in cariages feeds that.

My other point is the freedoms of the Royals themselves. The days when the royal family could do what they wanted behind closed doors are gone. Everything they do is public property and lately I've started to think that some of them must want out but can't. Like their wealth, it's an accident of birth. I think people should have some sort of choice about being in a situation like that.

And yeah, I don't believe in Monarchy generally, there's that too

The Queen of New Zealand (and Australia and Canada among others) does a marvellous job.

There are certain advantages to having your Head-Of-State based 12,000 miles away. For a starter, she is handily placed if we need to nuke France.

If it's not a silly question, why is there a need for a figurehead of either type?

Now I quite fancies that being, "transported beyond the seas" so I'd just like to say, "[Treason removed by moderator] the Queen".

Picks himself of the floor.

Brilliant. I love it

Not sure I agree with Nanny, but V. Funny!

Just want to apologise for getting dates wrong. 50th anniversary today, not yesterday (blooming diary!) thought the news was quiet about it yesterday!

Never thought I would agree with a chicken. The question bit, rather than the treason bit mind. Knowing my luck the "beyond the seas" bit would probably send me to St. Kilda.