Not needed on voyage
The government has told King Choss it doesn’t need his help at the environment summit.
I’ll say right up front I’m not consistent on this point. I think Choss has no standing to say anything on any subject, other than the ordinary human one. On the other hand turning the climate ship around is more important than keeping the monarchy in check. I think both that Choss should keep his opinions to himself because he has an arbitrary megaphone via birth, and that Choss should be allowed to warn about climate change because he has an arbitrary megaphone via birth.
Before his accession to the throne last month, the King – then the Prince of Wales – had indicated he would attend the annual conference.
But now he’s in the top job and that means he has to confine himself to the ceremonial bits.
In the past, the King has demonstrated his deep commitment to environmental issues and, as Prince of Wales, had a long history of campaigning to reduce the effects of climate change.
Only last year he made a speech at the COP26 opening ceremony in Glasgow, when the summit was hosted by the UK. The late Queen also gave a speech at the event, via video link.
Who wrote the queen’s speech though? Probably the government.
I’m not a fan of constitutional monarchies, but I’m not convinced that democracies that place significant power in the hands of presidents or similar posts have covered themselves with glory either. Ceremonial presidencies seem just as pointless as a constitutional monarch, although I guess it’s less likely to become hereditary.
Getting to my rambling point, if Charles is ‘just another guy’ then why shouldn’t he have and express a view? If he’s technically head of state, then why shouldn’t he display leadership – even if we feel distaste for why he’s head of state? The point in this specific case is that now he’s head of state he’s by convention supposed to be a mouthpiece for the government and in this case the government has taken a lurch to the right and doesn’t want to pay the cost of going green because they’ve just torpedoed their own economy.
A part of me wants him to deliver a speech emphasising the importance and urgency of climate action anyway and convention be damned. On this issue it would be the right thing to do. That damages the convention of a puppet monarch though, which might be of more lasting damage to the system of government. Then again, the head of state is supposed to be the last line of defence against a rogue or incompetent government, which arguably the UK has here. Trickier than you’d think at first glance I think and people could reach different conclusions.
Where other countries have constitutions, Britain has just a series of unwritten conventions. Moreover, where other European countries have dispensed with non-elected heads of state one way or another, Britain has not yet got round to it. (Probably by an oversight on someone’s part rather than deliberate intention.)
Australia and NZ both get something of a free ride on this system. So I say God save His Majesty! Could be a bloody lot worse.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country
https://www.businessinsider.com/royal-family-net-worth-europe-ranked-2018-5#1-grand-duke-henri-luxembourg-10
Omar, Choss and Betty were both deeply involved in the coup that saw the Whitlam government ended. The Drunken Fool at Yarralumla kept Betty informed, and post coup Choss congratulated Kerr.
We now have another idiot GG who has signed off on all sorts of malfeasance, who used his platform to spruik private businesses, and whose military career is still under a cloud.
No thank you – I prefer a HOS we get to kick out at the ballot box to one whose position is based on “representing” the latest Capo in the world’s longest running criminal enterprise.
Heh. The column I sent to Free Inquiry a week ago makes the same comparison. Mind you, it does spring out at one.
[…] a comment by Rob on Not needed on […]
Rev David @#3:
Who would you like: President Keating? Or maybe President Scummo; I mean ScoMo? There would be no shortage of ex-pollies and other dodgy types lining up to have a go.
Whereas at present we get King Charlie courtesy of the Pommy taxpayers, and ride free as cattle ticks on the backside of their latest show pony.
Although my heart lies with the NZ Republican movement, my head dwells on the issues and under performance of presidencies in western (and non-western) democracies. As I alluded above, it’s really not clear that one system is inherently much better than another. I acknowledge that the philosophical stance of not having hereditary rulers has merit. But I honestly can’t think of a New Zealander who would stand even the remotest chance of being elected by a popular vote, who would stand a chance of being elected, and who I would think was a good choice. Frankly I think having ever been a member of, or associated with, a political party should rule someone out of being figurehead president.
I can understand the necessity of republicanism in the UK; the royal family holds vast amounts of public lands as if it was privately owned. Given the recent economic malpractice of their government, and with energy costs set to roughly double in a single year, urgent may soon be a better descriptor.
But the case is less pressing in the former colonies. We have sovereignty, and we don’t gift the leeches with nearly as many lands an other kickbacks as does the UK.
Omar, et al, the truly Australian way to “elect” an Australian HoS is the pub Chook Raffle. After all, everything has to “pass the pub test” first.
Who knows, if we sell enough tickets the whole shebang could be self funding.
Germany, France, Ukraine, India, Spain, Austria, and South Korea all seem to manage OK. The USA is not the only form of a Repblic.
Rob, Te Tiriti is the biggest obstacle to a New Zealand Republic. That is with “The Crown” and Maori are afraid of it being extinguished along with the monarchy.
David, I wouldn’t pretend to understand the definitive view of Maori on this issue. Some Maori have been deeply loyal to the Monarch, while others regard the monarchy as the apex of the colonial system that did them so much wrong. There is the kingitanga to consider as well. Would that remain politically relevant without a Monarchy that needs balancing? There are also a lot of high profile Maori who have stated they are in favour of NZ becoming a republic. A similar spread of opinions and concerns to Anglo descendant New Zealanders on the whole, albeit with different cultural resonances.
Rev,
Spain isn’t a democracy, and its king emeritus, who many (myself included) admired for his apparent role in the transition to democracy, turns out to be a corrupt scumbag. His son seems better, but who knows?
Anyway, perhaps you were thinking of Portugal?
Why does abolishing monarchy mean we have to put something else (like a president) in its place? Why can’t we simply get rid of the monarchy and have nothing in its place? What would we lose that we couldn’t do without? I really don’t get it.
Bjarte, you don’t have to have a second layer such as president for HoS of course. Anymore than you have to have an upper chamber in the parliament of congress or whatever it’s called. You could just elect a prime Minister and call it done.
Most democracies do add in a separate HoS though. Some want a unifying figurehead who is relatively apolitical that can be a unifying voice representing the people as a whole. Some want a check on the government’s ability to exercise unbridled power. There is no perfect system as no matter your laws and constitution, peoples faith in democracy, and the norm of following the intent of the law is probably more import. I do believe we are seeing a crisis of faith in democracy at the moment. Distrust in elected governments is up, participation in elections (Trump factor aside) is generally poor. This is even more marked at local than national level. very few people turn out to elect those who actually determine local administrative functions. It’s created this vacuum that is being filled by demagogues and fascists.
I would agree with Rob above on this issue. A Head of State with powers to sack a poorly performing government and immediately call a fresh election is pretty important. Ultimately, it is the populace who must make the final decision.