http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18286371

Not when we can hide it under a jubilee!

Can't we just sack the Windsors too?

Not when some of us want them to stay.

That's fine. If we get to vote for a head of state, you can vote for the Windsors.

Yay for hereditary rule, entrenched privilege and elitism.

I feel this has veered somewhat from the initial topic .

Obvious question : is the Conservative party's continuing defense of Hunt in the face of mounting evidence that he was James Murdoch's lapdog doing them more harm than good?

Let it hurt them. Anything that exposes the Tories as weak, disorganised, ineffective, and debased in the presence of corporate greed is fine by me.

My problem is that they are freely handing out silver bullets like there is no tomorrow to the Labour party whose incumbent leadership team do not even know how to load the [LIFTED] gun.

Could that be because the Labour party were just as weak, disorganised, ineffective and debased in the presence of coporate greed during their term in power?

Could it be that, being formed primarily from members of the corporate and social elite, all governments of recent times act to merely to serve themselves?


As opposed to presidential contests?

Which model of presidential contest would you like?

• The German model where the Parliament usually chooses someone nobody has heard of except when the Prime Minster chooses a corrupt prick that nobody likes?
• The French model where the one who is on the opposite extreme is elected, except when he isn't
• The Russian model where the President chooses himself?
• The US model where the better-looking one wins, except when the other has enough cash and friendly Supreme Court judges to swing it (courtesy of his dad)?
• The Central American model where the guy who controls the most of the cocaine/cocoa/banana harvest gets chosen?
• The South American model where the President chooses who is president?
• The West African model where the guy the army likes most is President?
• The East African model where the guy the tribal chiefs and militias likes most is President?
• The East German/Tajik/Cuban model where the president simply is?

Any model where the people get a say and there's real democratic accountability as opposed to having to put up with one family whose only achievement happened to be sitting on the throne when the UK decided killing the Monarch to take his place wasn't acceptable any more.

A directly elected President would do just fine thank you. As things stand the person with the largest personal mandate is the Mayor of London, this is slightly ridiculous. An elected President could veto unpopular Bills, this is enormously more useful than a Monarch whose only significant act concerning the governance of the United Kingdom was selecting an interim Prime Minister in 1963. It's also telling who she chose - a Tory who was also a member of the establishment, go figure.

The current situation is so ridiculous that questions regarding the Royal Family, their estates, income or the whole question of whether we should have a Monarchy altogether are barred in both Houses of Parliament. It's madness.

The Royal Family signify everything that is wrong with Britain - celebrity culture, inherited wealth and privilege, cronyism, nepotism, elitism, class division and exploitation of the public purse for private gain. The Queen has a personal portfolio of some £390 million, courtesy of UK taxpayer PLC. The Royal Family own huge swathes of land (not to mention that the majority of British land is controlled by a small minority) and their affairs aren't subject to public scrutiny. The National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee should be making that bunch of freeloaders squirm.

So no, I'm not in favour. I am against everything that "institution" represents. Abolish it now, please.

And replace it with what?

Show me any large economy where the demos actually have any power and where money and privilege aren't the primary factors in who gets elected. You can't. Because there isn't one.

There is no such thing as "real democratic accountability"; there's non-elected money (such as the Queen) and people chosen by non-elected money (Presidents).

Right, so to stop idolising film stars and prostitutes we're supposed to idolise a family born into wealth instead. The Royal Family are millionaires, so what's the difference exactly? Funnily enough not only do people idolise these others anyway (Closer etc, anyone?) but I address this point above - idolising the Royal Family is still celebrity culture, you're just substituting one person who actually had to work for something in favour of a person who happened to be born into a particular family.

Why is idolising Prince William any better than idolising Peter Andre? Because CS Lewis says so?

Monarchy, who needs it? The French seem to do just fine, as do the Finns, the Swiss, the Italians, the Irish, the Greeks, the Icelandics etc etc ad infinitum. Hell, even the Americans manage it. Even Jamaica seem to think it's a good idea, and they share the same Monarch as us.

Dennis Skinner.

There is no reason why money has to launch someone into the presidency - we've had notable Prime Ministers (not to mention Cabinet Ministers) from modest backgrounds.

But even if it did - at least we'd have an active choice as opposed to having it foisted upon us forever by hereditary means.

I think the biggest argument against getting rid of the monarchy is that every area of elected officialdom is populated by self serving morons and tyrants who've done vastly more to undermine things like civil liberties than the monarch has.

Given that the nation persistently elects such incompetent [LIFTED] into positions of power, what makes you think a presidency will for a moment be any different?