One of the problems of being ANTI-monarchist is that you’re essentially defining yourself as Against Them. A Negative Force. It’s sort of exhausting, curmudgeonly, bad karma. On royal bank holidays, you’re the Pain-In-The-Arse griping about the Windsors as you quaff a sneaky wee beer under the bunting ( note. there’s no bucking funting where I live). You’re the one offending the Nice Oul’ granny who likes Kate.
And when the media do pay lip-service to republicanism (almost never) we’re portrayed as quaint eccentrics, with outlandish views ( worth a listen to this mad monarchist from about 3.20). Bizarrely, it’s often framed as evidence of how jolly good sports monarchists are – sort of Isn’t Britain Bloody Great Because We Tolerate Those Who Question Her MAJESTY….
Part of the problem is that the positive case for a Constitutional Alternative ( I know…yawn right ? ) can’t be condensed into a pithy tweet or retort. I’ve tried.
But it’s good to plant the seed of an alternative UK, a Head Of State.
I say this because the as soon as you mention an elected President the monarchists veins begin to bulge and wee foamy bits of spittle appear on their trembling lip until they play their Ace Card…
“What ? I suppose you’d prefer PRESIDENT BLAIR ?”
This is an utterly feeble line of attack and in fact an insult to the electorate. As if that’s the best option. As if the trauma of being abandoned by the Windsors would put the public into such a depression that they’d immediately vote for a war mongering lying politician that the majority of them hate. When some monarchist clown pipes up with the President Blair line it simply affirms that they’ve never had the imagination to contemplate any alternative to the monarchy.
So if not Blair, then who ?
I remember years ago some columnist writing – why don’t we make Michael Palin our head of state ? He seems like a lovely man, he’s self effacing and polite. He’s good at meeting people from other countries without spouting lazy racist stereotypes, he smiles a lot, drinks tea and is kinda funny. I don’t care who our first elected head of state is ( or indeed, if we need one), but the stardust Michael Palin thought is a useful one just to contrast with the turgid spectacle of the Windsors double-breasting their way through the next century.
Or Clare Baulding. I mean, OBVIOUSLY I can’t bear her Barbour-Jacketed Top Girl schtick- but y’know – she’s like an uber Windsor only more skilled with the media. Horses, poshness, sport, communicates. And she’s gay which gives a bit of international kudos (there’s certain places in Empire she couldn’t visit).
A president could serve ten year terms, or retire without it being ‘a constitutional crisis’. President’s can be black, gay, disabled, catholic, muslim, eccentric, transexual – all those things that the Daily Mail would scream about if the Windsor family showed any sign of. A president would be entitled to more personal privacy – after all, the press have an absolute right to sniff around the Windsors private life because of the unignorable fact that the Head of State is dependent on bloodline. If they’re shagging around, it’s a perfectly valid story.
A president would also want the job, as opposed to some poor intellectually feeble snob out of his depth forever moaning that he doesn’t get enough influence on politics.
And it wouldn’t cost us so much. They could have one palace, instead of 8. They would have met real people before, and not have been brought up surrounded by flunkeys.
Of course, we’d get a duff Head of State occasionally – but….we do anyway. And if we get a Boris, we can always vote him out.
Finally, in these political times, consider that the queen gets £13m annually, and Prince Charles gets £19m from the Duchy of Cornwall.
Michael D Higgins, the poet president of Ireland has a salary of €270,000.
One of his first acts when elected…. was to reduce it to €207,000.
Well played Mr President.
4 thoughts on “Who’d be POTUK?”
And the Windsors, with their innate leadership skills and gravitas, could stand for election if they wanted. Actually put themselves to the test and see if the public really do hold them in such esteem.
As for me – Michael Palin would get my vote
I’ve listened to that recording three times in a row, and it gets funnier each time I replay it!
Yes to Michael Palin, but also yes to John Cleese for Vice President (who turned down a barony and a CBE so props to him). They can roll out the Windsor lot for the Upper Class Twit of the Year competition!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What we see happening, particularly in India, is that those politicians that have worked hard with the party throughout their years, are generally not too controversial nationally and have not hit the highest office (namely that of the prime minister) are handed their party’s nomination for the presidency. One doesn’t have to go further than Pranab Mukherjee, President of India, who served as the country’s Foreign, Defence, Commerce and Finance Minister over his five decades in politics. He didn’t get the nod for the top job, however, because dynastic politics in the Indian National Congress party, of which he is a member, meant that only a Gandhi could realistically be nominated to run for prime minister. However, his generally-respectable nature, in combination with his long service to the nation, meant he was nominated for, and subsequently won, the 2012 Indian presidential election.
In the UK, this process would most likely not be followed in the same way; while candidates may have liberal or conservative views, they should definitely not be nominated by parties. This would give easy rise to party politics rearing its ugly head all the way up to the head of state’s office. However, the point to be made is that anyone who runs for President should have served the nation in a substantial way (note this would not be only restricted to politics), should be a respected figure and suitable figurehead nationwide and should be able to exercise the duties of the head of state with impartiality. Whether that be someone like Michael Palin, who has never been a career politician, or a career politician who is able to rise above party politics, it would be for the better to have a member of the general populace head up the executive branch.
Pingback: Why I SUPPOSE YOU’D PREFER TONY BLAIR is a stupid thing to say…. | revoltingsubject