defense of the Monarchy yesterday by BQ, but it is not going to wash with me:
No, no and no again to Consitutional Monarchy.
A nice try Bill but I am not falling for it. My argument is not about money as I entirely agree with you that the cost/benefit of Monarchy vs some sort of Presidency will probably work out better for the Monarchy.
My belief rests on the social impacts and thus, sadly, I am even for once of Mark Wadsworth's side even though I am a committed Home Owener.
The biggest issue today in the UK is social mobility. Poor people struggle to get on and one of the key reasons behind this is the built into our social structure. The people at the top are born into wealth and power and literally cannot be removed. It's a terrible incentive for the people in the Country and creates and feeds the terrible obsession with class that blights our nation.
The US simply does not have this. The Kardahsians are royalty today, for five minutes, the Clintons were too, it will be someone else next week. Also the kardashians are no marks, I think this is a good thing. They will be replaced, it is not some dynasty that will last 1000 years.
Finally, we need a president to have some power, where the Queen has none the Prime Minister is too powerful, a President could have powers to block, legitimately, unjust legislation should it ever be attempted by future extreme Governments of any colour.
Finally, to the comments, people say imagine President Blair! OK but imagine President Boris or even President Sugar. Surely more useful than someone who goes to the Races and opens the odd school. I would even vote one day for a President Prince George, why not, as long as we can vote and he has to campaign.