I was fortunate enough to escape abroad for the jubilee. (I went to Paris on the basis that a republic with a socialist president can’t be a bad place to run away to at times of excessive demonstrations of monarchism). But I still didn’t escape the uncomfortable feeling that what was happening at home did not reflect how I feel about Britain, being British or how I would like our country to be.
Our French taxi driver told us confidently that he thought our queen would be the last queen. My friend and I demurred. What we have witnessed over the past few weeks does not feel like the last throes of the monarchy. Rather the constant stream of royals-r-us programmes in the extended run up to the bank holiday weekend has felt like a coordinated and deliberate reinforcement of a system of inherited position. By giving broadcasters ‘unprecedented’ access to archives and interviews with senior royals, Buckingham Palace’s PR machine has played a blinder. What we have been witnessing is spin at its finest. Because it has been so successful that, at least until the forced use of unemployed stewards broke the Disney veneer, the rhetoric around the jubilee has made it extremely difficult for those ambivalent or directly opposed to the principle of having a monarchy to air their views without being portrayed as disrespectful or – even worse – appearing to be killjoys.
The jubilee, the argument went, was harmless fun and anyone who disagreed was being disrespectful not just to the Queen but to all those people who were holding street parties, cake competitions and waving the flag. The aggression directed at some comments suggesting we could celebrate and have community events without venerating a non-elected head of state was alarming. (Shame on you, republicans! No better than the Roundheads banning Christmas).
Over the course of the jubilee weekend, I dipped in and out of the live commentary on Twitter and Facebook. I appreciate, therefore, that not everyone in the Labour party shares my view that efforts to create a more equal and fairer society will inevitably be hampered by the continuation of the monarchy, and what it and the class system arising from it represents.
Feel free to call me a killjoy, but please let us not get so drawn in to the myth of the benign monarchy being pushed by the Windsor PR machine that we are afraid to have a debate about alternatives for the future, a debate that should examine the widespread myths used to support the institution: the myth that the royal family are all hard-working ‘good eggs’; the ‘benefit to tourism’ myth; and the myth that the monarchy is good value for money.
I for one would like the Paris taxi driver to be proved right that the queen will be the last monarch. Above all, however, I would like us not just to drift into an unquestioning acceptance without debate, that our next head of state will inherit the position as a birthright.
So please, once the pageantry has passed, let’s have a sensible debate that allows for consideration of introducing something as shockingly radical as an elected and accountable head of state without suggesting that to debate the point is unpatriotic or somehow not needed.
—————————————————————————————
Fiona Twycross is a Labour member of the London assembly
—————————————————————————————
Read also: Why we should rejoice by Jay Asher
—————————————————————————————
Is that not democracy though, the right of the people to decide who should be the head of the state be it a President Blair, or a President Thatcher , or her Maj.
The fact is if politicians think it should change then do a referendum and the people will pick.
Why would it have to be a one-off referendum? Why not have an election every four or five years? If Liz is as popular as her supporters assert, she’d win every time.
Are you seriously proposing that the “constitutional monarchy” changes to an “constitutional monarchy by popular vote” – what are we? Russia?!
Monarchy V Republic is just a side show – the real debate should be Nations V Regions.
Call it what you want – constitutional monarchy, presidency, whatever. What, exactly, would be the problem with the people of the country having a say in who becomes and continues to be their head of state?
As for who fills the void, that’s for the people to decide – Stephen Fry, Joan Bakewell, David Deutsch, Jordan, Keith Harris and Orville, your Auntie Jeanette. Wouldn’t you rather have a head of state you don’t like but who can be voted out than a head of state you don’t like but you’re stuck with for life?
I would love to be able to vote for the head of state. but why fixate on Liz, when we don’t have much say in who the prime minister turns out to be?: “Vote Thatcher end up with Major”,”Vote Blair wind up with Brown”, “Vote Clegg get Cameron” <- fix that 'democratic' anomaly first
So you will waste public money to have an election, which is one. Don’t you realise that democracy is much more than votes but it is also about public support. Millions turned out, not just in Britain but across the world, to celebrate and show their love and support to the Queen, so can these republicans stop trying to politicise everything and understand that some great institutions that reflect our history, our traditions but most importantly our country are to precious to sling in the dirt of party politics and nonsense from curmudgeous, of which Fiona Twycross is a sadly a member!
I think it would be perfectly legitimate to hold a referendum on whether the crown passes to Charles or whether we should elect a head of state when the Queen dies.
A referendum? What a brilliant waste of time and money. The Monarchy will triumph amazingly and also it is not just the decision of the British people but the entire Commonwealth. You will argue to spend millions of pounds (at a time of fiscal constraint) on a referendum which no one cares about and when the Monarchy will win. It is absolutely MAD. Can’t you just accept that the British people are monarchists. We celebrate an institution that has been around for hundreds (almost a thousand years) because it is a key part of our history and our traditions. Can’t republicans like you stop being weird curmudgeons and just live with it!
Give people the option at a general election to vote for an absolute monarchy and you can get your rolling referendums for a republic.
I see somebody already thinks we have a democracy,we don’t have a democracy in the United Kingdom.If you start from where we are then we can go forward,but if you start at the wrong point then we will never develop into a democracy. I hope she is the last,I have never understood why some think that because of who you father or mother is means you should have privilege,you should on your own effort attain the standing you merit.
In two years we in Scotland will have a referendum over the union over whether we should have the status qua or dissolve the union,I’m for dissolution,and further more becoming a republic. Victoria should have been the end of it all,but too many get an easy time and don’t have work for their bread,and thus try to keep it as is.
All this bigging up the monarchy is to help boost it to give some headroom for when Charlie boy gets the throne – he’ll be the democrat’s best friend if he carries on even slightly in the way that he does now.
All this bigging up the monarchy is to help boost it to give some headroom for when Charlie boy gets the throne – he’ll be the democrat’s best friend if he carries on even slightly in the way that he does now.
Obviously you would have to have a referendum before abolishing the Monarchy, which means that you would have to persuade a majority of the electorate that the alternative (a directly elected President, I presume) would be better than sticking with the current system.
I’m not exactly sure who decides which proposals get included in the Labour Party’s general election manifesto these days. But whoever it is would have to be convinced that promising a referendum on the abolition of the Monarchy would be popular with potential voters.
Personally I don’t think either Charles or William are “better” than the rest of us – but then they aren’t claiming to be. Their position appears to be that they are willing to maintain the Monarchy, if that is what the majority of the British people wish them to do.
Much more important and urgent than abolising the Monarchy is the need for a 100% democratic Parliament, either by abolishing the House of Lords or replacing it with a Senate elected by PR. But for some reason, Labour failed to do this while it was in Government.
What a delight it is to read this article here. Some reasonably high profile Progress members on Twitter have been indulging in what can only be described as highly antagonistic pro monarchy cheerleading for much of the weekend.
While most Labour members pride themselves on campaigning against inherited wealth, privilege and power there appears to be a blind spot when discussing the epitome of such.
And please can we nail this killjoys/being humourless jibe? Not once has it been suggested that my opposition to the current government’s stewardship of the economy or the health service is because I am humourless. In fact it is such a crass argument I am surprised otherwise intelligent people use it.
Republicans don’t tend to get knighthoods
They don’t want or need them
So during their 13 years in power did Labour once try to discuss the future of the monarchy? It is hardly an issue that has only just reared its ugly head.
For those looking forward to a republican constitution in a devolved Scotland, well the SNP plan to keep Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (sorry, Windsor) as head of state. The Scottish Greens however favour both devolution and a Scottish republic.
I was disappointed with your article – I thought you were going to side with Mervyn and ‘The Daily Mail’ (http://bit.ly/KF06bg) and flag up the impact the extended holiday will have had on the economy – they’re putting it around the £6bn mark.
What do you think of this:
“Hundreds of thousands of civil servants are already authorised to take an extra ‘privilege day’ off work today.
Some working in the private sector are also expected to follow suit, particularly parents who are looking after children during the school half-term.
However, they will have to take any extra days as part of their annual holiday allocation – rather than being granted a longer break courtesy of the State.”
Even if you axe the monarchy we’ll still be stuck with the privileged civil service caste.
The monarchy is a powerful tourist attraction and the Jubilee provided hundreds of hours of folksy tourist fodder – it may not have been ‘Cool Britannia’, but it did show the British people in a positive light and far more cheaply than the Olympics will. The bloated civil service on the other hand – what do they do to earn their titles, generous pensions and expense accounts?
I now regret voting for Fiona Twycross for the NPF.
The first paragraph of this perfectly sums up how I felt.
No modern and forward looking articulation of what Britain is about. This is not just a task for the Labour Party. It’s a wiser task for cultural institutions and their constituents. And a big one.
Britain needs renewal.
*sigh*
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Explain
Very disappointing article from Fiona Twycross. Ipsos Mori, last week, found only 13% of Britons want a republic. We wouldn’t design a system like the monarchy today, but the rich history and purpose of our monarchy and the Queen is why it’s exceptionally dear to so many.
Progress is meant to represent the centre ground – this is a peripheral non-issue as far as the overwhelming majority of voters are concerned, and I hope Progress won’t be giving publicity to anymore such out-of-touch preaching claptrap.
I couldn’t agree more. Of course the hereditary principle is not perfect, but it’s the Monarchy’s ability to remodernise and get in touch and bring a sense of tradition and love for our institutions, into a vastly modern and socially progressive country. It’s the combination of the ‘faith, family and flag’ and the modernity, progressivism and liberalism which is what is so brilliantly British (and so brilliantly Labour too)! So we need to bring an end to this curmudgeon claptrap.
Completely agree. It shows how out of touch some Labour people are that they actually seem to think a monarchy referendum is something anyone cares about. I hope Progress won’t be publishing anymore of this hard left dribble again.
This article sums up my feelings exactly.
The French taxi driver may well prove right, after all the spectre of Charles Windsor is now in sight on the horizon, and he and Camilla Windsor are not exactly flavour of the month.
Just to let you know that the man who so rudely call Charles Windsor (he is Prince Charles or Charles, Prince of Wales) actually wanted to join the Cambridge University Labour Club when he was at Jesus College it was because his Master was a former Conservative cabinet minister that he was prevented from doing so!
The man’s name is Windsor, that is an irrefutable fact. On 17 July 1917 the family changed their name from Saxe-Coburg Gotha to Windsor. The proclomation ended with the words that henceforth male descendants “shall bear the said name of Windsor.” Not believing in fairy tales I do not use meaningless titles. The fact that a hereditary aristorcrat millionaire toyed with different politicial ideologies is of little interest. Charles Windsor’s Great Uncle was once lauded for being a man of the people, but in fact he turned out to be more than just a passing Nazi sympathiser.
Interestingly, some of the younger members of the Windsor family have begun calling themselves by the name of “Wales”. Very odd and insecure behaviour.
Its really not. It’s a long standing tradition to use your fathers title as your surname. William and Harry are sons on the Prince of Wales so they are William Wales and Henry Wales, likewise the daughters of the Duke of York use York.
When members of the House or Lords sign their name, they actually sign their title, not the Duke, Lord or Baronet part, but the geographic area.
What you describe sounds just like fairy tale land, apart from the fact that some members of the House of so-called Lords are adept at embezzling money in expenses to which they are not entitled.
What republican curmudgeons fail to understand that to abolish the Monarchy would be futile. Firstly, a Presidential system will result in the concentration of constitutional power as well as political power in one person – the President. That President will be able to dissolve Parliament at his own will, he will be able to change the constitution without the need to consult Parliament because of the constitutional power. What happens when the President choses to abolish Parliament for example, he does not need to consult Parliament for that matter because he can do it himself. Secondly, a President will divide not unite. Because the President is elected, and extremely powerful, there will be a large majority of people who will be dissatisfied with the head of state. Thirdly, a President will provide second-rate public service because they will not be dedicated the country like the monarchy is. They will see it as a career platform and then after leaving office they could go of a make loads of money or use thier influence to their own advantage. Fourthly, the role of ‘head of state’ is kept away from de-politicised in order to prevent such high excess of power. Fifthy, the monarchy is loved and the monarchy loves the country – why on earth would you want to ruin that? Sixthly, as a Labour Party and a country we are socially progressive but truly supportive of our greatest traditions and institutions – that includes the Monarchy. Seventhly, this goes to all Labour supporters (especially those unelectable lefties who rally around Christine Shawcroft) “one of the things that keeps Britain from being a dictatorship, is having to kneel before the Queen every week and explain your job to her.” – the words of Harold Wilson. Eightly, the foolish suggestion of having a referendum of the Monarchy is ludicrous seen as we would LOSE support for suggesting such a bonkers idea, the Monarchy would clearly win by a landslide and in a time of fiscal constraint it would ludicrous to propose a ginormous waste of taxpayer’s money on something where there is massive national consensus when that money could be going into the reducing the deficit, creating jobs, generating growth or protecting our public services. Finally, God Save the Queen!
“the president will be able to dissolve parliament”. Sure, in your imagined version of the constitutional powers of the president of the UK. I think that most republicans envisage a president with limited powers.
A President with limited powers? I’m sorry but there is no limitations to a President’s powers. A President will be able to dissolve power, pass legislation without approval from Parliament, if he is an MP then he will have to address the House of Lords (which is constitutionally unacceptable) and he will be Head of State which will legally empower him to basically do what so ever he pleases – I know you republicans do not like to admit but it is true. If you are referring to the system of an Irish presidential system, then you will have a President with political allegiances acting as elected Head of State even though he does not actually govern. Also, the fact he is political not only brings up questions about his own partiality but also his ambitions to be President and why he wants to be President.
Presidents with limited powers exist all over the world.
If we have a President, then the head of state will have full executive power and no limitations. Why? Becuase political leadership and constitutional power will be combined. Go learn the British constitution before coming up with stupid dribble.
Re “there are no limitations to a President’s powers” you give the apparent reason below “he will be Head of State which will legally empower him to basically do what so ever he pleases”. You do not, however, explain why this would be so, and why it would not be so with the monarchy.
You mention the Irish system – do you believe the Irish president can do “what so ever he pleases”?
Also, re “if he is an MP” he wouldn’t be, it’d be a seperate position.
I explained the Irish presidency very well and if it is not an MP. Then you will have a crisis where power will not be in the Commons but in the hands of a directly-elected autocrat. Shocking.
Your ‘explanations’ did not touch on the questions I asked.
I asked if you believe the Irish president can do “what so ever he pleases” regarding two former comments of yours.
1. You had stated “there are no limitations to a President’s powers”, and in the process fail to differentiate between a democratic and an autocratic republic.
2. You went on to describe political allianges in the Irish system (fair enough) but then went on to state “the fact he is political …brings up questions [about] his ambitions to be President and why he wants to be President.” This would need clarity rather than nebulous concerns to be a valid point.
Again, when explaining the Irish presidency “very well” you did not begin to explain why a president can do “what so ever he pleases”. I’d suggest you need to actually give reasons for your beliefs, including but not limited to your further claim a president would be a “directly-elected autocrat”. While suffrage is not identical to democracy, it remains a central tool of democracy, and as such it is rather strange you’d assume assume a directly elected president to be an autocrat rather than a democrat.
Finally, please clarify “and if it is not an MP”. Do you mean you explained problems with the president not being an MP? I read your views as more explaining issues if the president were an MP. I am not attacking this point, just requesting clarity.
This is something that really bugs me. I constantly hear monarchists explain the consitutional nature of the monarchy, yet claim any presidential system would inherently lead to autocracy. Amazing.
Excellent Fiona, and so welcome to hear, Labour Republicans and republicans in general have every right to be heard and for the debate to be listened to. Over 10 million people in the UK support a republic, with 50% of the population uninterested in the Jubilee, but the fawning and endless biased reporting by the press and the media was awful, no balance, no democracy just a one sided point of view.
Democracy is important and the Royals cannot fit into democracy all the while they are imposed on us, social justice, equality and fairness are held back to pander to class. Royalist are entitled to their view but so too are republicans and it is disgraceful to waste multi millions on a privilege few when a recent report showed over 10 million brits are going without food on a regular bases. Republicans are not kill joys and it’s not disrespectful to speak out in support of democracy as we are citizens and not subjects of the queen. We do not recognise her as a head of state because she is unelected and we never chose her for such a role. If large scale events happen in the UK they should be to celebrate the people and their achievements and not celebrate inequality.
What the last weekend has revealed is just how…well let’s just say it, deeply conservative some so-called Progressives are.
Benjamin’s comment that we should all agree with the monarchy because just 13% want a republic makes me glad that he wasn’t around when people first started to talk about abolishing slavery or giving women the vote.
Finally, I do resent the constant suggestion that those who question the monarchy are curmudgeons and miserablists. There’s plenty to celebrate about being British that doesn’t involve lauding the inherited wealth and privilidge of one family.
Deeply conservative? Call it conservatism but I call it patriotism and a sense of national pride. It is the combination of the tradition ‘Faith, Family and Flag’ and the modern, socially progressive, tolerate and liberal nature that we have that makes our country (and to some extent the Labour Party) so special. There is nothing un-Progressive or Tory about revering and respecting our great traditions, history and civic institutions that we hold.
Lauging the inherited wealth and privilege of one family? What curmudgeons and miserablists like you fail to understand is that, the Royal Family is our Family. They are a family devoted to public service and to the country not to their wealth. Look at what Prince William and Prince Harry to for example regarding charity. You will find no ‘aristocratic’ family in the country that tours schools, opens hospitals and are deeply engaged in public service. And also because 13% of the country are republican, then yes we should support the monarchy and why – because it is the popular demand of the country! Republicans bark on and on about people choosing their Head of State, they have already done so. They have chosen the Monarchy through their massive support. You do not need a ballot to measure public support, something that politics can never EVER do. Clearly, you are on the hard-left of the party judging by your anti-Progress member comments, well let me take you to a comment made by Harold Wilson, one of our finest Prime Ministers who was on the old Bevanite wing of the party: “One of the things that keep Britain from being a dictatorship, is having to kneel before the Queen and explain your job to her.”
Patriotism is love of your country. To love Britain and believe that the monarchy is an undemocratic anachronism are not mutually exclusive…
There is “nothing un-Progressive or Tory about revering and respecting our great traditions, history and civic institutions”???
Are you serious?
Those very things are the cornerstone of tory philosophy. Our ‘history’ is of Empire, slave-trade, free-market exploitation and the development of ravenous capitalist corporations – with no elected Head of State to oppose or counterbalance.
Im sure the Queen is a lovely old lady, and equally sure she does a lot of good work for charity. BUT being a ‘nice old dear’ who does a lot of charity work is NOT a basis for government – otherwise my nan would be running the country.
Socialists in other countries have never taken British socialists seriously – precisely for the sort of comments that you quote from Wilson.
When an elected Prime Minister has to ‘kneel’ before an unelected monarch (however nice she happens to be as a person) that is NOT DEMOCRACY.
So by all means carry on with your pro-monarchist views – you are fully entitled to believe whatever you lke, just as I am, but dont kid yourself that you’re a democrat or progressive. You can be a monarchist OR a democrat, not both. Democracy and monarchy are mutually incompatable concepts.
You are clearly mad. Since when did we not respect or great traditions, history and civic institutions. Since when was that the preserve of the Right. Our history has been a country that gave my mother and father hope to come here and work, our history has been that of progress and modernisation throughout the ages. Do not denounce British history and do not denounce patriotism. Also, don’t you dare say you cannot be a monarchist and democrat, you are clearly not very smart. We have a constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy – they system I support. And the fact you dismiss Harold Wilson’s very serious comments about The Queen show how foolish and in denial you really are. You are not a progressive, you are just a joke!
You say that we should support the monarchy as it’s the “popular demand of the county”. We’ll you could say that about reintroduction of the death penalty and massively restricting immigration.
I’m not as it happens on the “hard left” of the party – although I shudder to think what you regard as “hard left” – although given your comments it sounds as though you’d be at home on the centre right of the Conservative party.
There is not a popular demand of the country on reintroducing the death penalty and restricting immigration – you are clearly wrong. Given you denounce the popular demand of the country, that therefore makes you undemocratic.
If you think I am centre-right then you are either plain thick or a Marxist!
See link below
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2504
70 per cent in favour of death penalty. Not far short of support for monarchy.
You seem oddly obsessed with my political position. Is accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being an extremist your comfort blanket?
Well, actually support for the monarchy is at about 80% and other polls on death penalty do not verify that. Also, in general elections there are only three parties that support the death penalty UKIP, BNP and English Democrats and if the people wanted that’s who’d they turn to – the share of the vote for these parties actually fell.
Secondly, people do not rally in favour of the death penalty. The petition for a death penalty has not reached the amount for it to be debated in the Commons. On the other hand, thousands of people (millions of people) came together to actively celebrate the monarchy. There you go! Your point has been – destroyed!
Destroyed? Ignored more like.
By the way, I’ve worked out who you are.
The ghost of Norman St John Stevas?
Fiona, I am sad that, as a London-wide assembly member, you left London behind during the jubilee weekend.
I am sorry that you were ‘fortunate enough to escape’ from people like me who organised a street party of 240 of your constituents who came together in celebration. You were ‘fortunate enough to escape’ from thousands of other street parties across the capital too.
I am sorry that you were ‘fortunate enough to escape’ from the 1.2 million Londoners, Brits and visitors who lined the banks of the river in celebration.
I am sorry that you were ‘fortunate enough to escape’ from the countless examples of kindness and good old fashioned British decency that I saw. If you’d have come to Battersea Park, you’d have seen people dancing in the rain with a grin on their face, you’d have seen strangers buying drinks for each other, singing at the top of their voice, waving flags and just being happy. It was a city united in a way no politician could ever deliver, not because we’re brainwashed, but because it was something we made a conscious decision to support.
Your ideology drove you away, whilst millions of people were coming together.
You talk about aggression – I have to say the only aggression I’ve seen is the ‘I’m more enlightened than you’ snobbery coming from Republicans on twitter and, from what I’ve heard, the 4o or so republicans booing and shouting at the Queen as the flotilla passed. Thankfully I was ‘fortunate enough’ to be too busy having a belting good weekend to care too much about the behaviour of a minority so small most won’t even have noticed the protest’s existence.
Have your debate if you like, move to the Socialist Republican Utopia of France (now that’s the real myth) if you like. But the simple fact is that whilst you were ‘escaping’, millions of your constituents were united in celebration, having a brilliant time and dancing until their feet were sore.
When your ideology makes you hate weekends like this, maybe it’s time to question your ideology. Cheer up Fiona.
The sad thing is I was fooled into believing that Fiona Twycross was a sensible realist in the party, who was not only a Progress member but standing as a moderate in the National Policy Forum elections and then she comes up with this guff – the kind of thing you’ll expect from Tony Benn! It’s ludicrous, I want my vote back!
Once upon a time, people were similarly outraged by Tony Benn’s suggestion that we should have an elected house of lords.
There is a major difference between reform of the House of Lords (which wasn’t Benn’s idea at all) and destroying one of our great institutions!
WTF? Next you’ll be slagging off muslims and hindus for not celebrating christmas.
You have presented no argument here about why an unelected head of state is preferable to an elected one. All you have done is made yourself look totally intolerant to an completely rational and valid political viewpoint.
No, all I did was explain what a damn good weekend I had – like countless other people. You actually chose to not only miss out but vocally campaign against it – that leaves me asking ‘WTF?’.
Your ideology is keeping you miserable mate…and that is why your ideology wins so little support nationally (both on the Monarchy and more generally). It simply doesn’t understand the psyche of the British people. We’re a complicated but ultimately optimistic bunch, we wanted to celebrate, not argue. And celebrate we did. So many people support the Monarchy for a simple reason – they like it. Full stop.
Never mind though, some French taxi driver said we don’t have long left, so he must be right!
I was one of those republicans protesting for democracy, I like many others are patriotic for Great Britain and the Union Jack , we are not snobbish or aggressive, we leave that to the drunken so called royalists who taunted us. and for the record the republicans on the sunday were 2000 strong of which 1900 were barred from the riverbank – the sovereign of this nation and who republicans salute is Great Britain itself and not a select few living in a town house just off Hyde Park Corner
Interesting that many were barred from reaching it to the river (I’ve heard this also from a few other sources). That doesn’t surprise me greatly, but it does bother me that the BBC report I saw only mentioned the 100 who made it – something which initially gave me the impression that was it.
How about a directly elected monarch? Queen Elizabeth II against someone else for example. Which Party does she represent, well, say she’s an independent, then who opposes her, the Tories wouldn’t so the Labour Party would put up a candidate, which would be potentially King Anthony, not being funny or anything. King Charles III is then selected by the Conservatives, beats King Anthony and gets in for his 7 years for in office. We don’t need to change the name on the passport except to add Democratic between United and Kingdom and Northern Ireland. God save a democratic elected queen! Yes we can.
‘A sensible debate’ by Fiona Twycross: no solid arguments or facts bar a half-attempt in the last sentence of para five. A vacuous read.
Nothing wrong with the hereditary method of selecting a head of state. It works perfectly well for North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia ….
So disappointed by this article. Have made my decision not to vote for Fiona Twycross on the NPF now, we need fewer loony lefties in this party not more.
Plus its Most disappointing as she is a Londn Assembly Member, abandoning London when it came together. Just hope the Evening Standard don’t read this nonsense, or it’ll be bad publicity for all of us in Labour, not just one cynical AM.
This woman is painfully out of touch with British opinion. The idea of Labour proposing a monarchy referendum is the exact sort of idea that puts Labour on the loony peripheries of what real British people are concerned with.
I was one of those on the London republican protest, the EDL thought we were Irish republicans lol but there is nothing wrong in flying the flag, and being patriotic about Britain, just dont celebrate the royal family, celebrate democracy and of the 1.25 million flag wavers who went to London for the Jubbly boat race, how many were real royalists, the minority, many were just simply there to enjoy the pageantry and enjoy being British.
Commenters may be interested also in the piece on Progress today by Jay Asher: Why we should rejoice http://archive.progressonline.org.uk/2012/06/07/why-we-should-rejoice/