Categories
Just 7% would vote for The Queen to be our Head of State – politicalbetting.com
Just 7% would vote for The Queen to be our Head of State – politicalbetting.com
Only a quarter of voters would vote for a Royal
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1373636482024505344
Of course, this question is a hypothetical which rather bypasses the necessary precondition: should the Queen be replaced to begin with?
There are plenty of good arguments to be made in favour of a republic, but it is a niche interest and likely to remain so. Sorry.
Hopefully if we are going to be stuck with a pathetic trickle of first doses during April, then at least this might mean that the over 50s have pretty well all been cleared out by the end of the month and the over 40s can then be done at speed in May - assuming there aren't yet more problems heading our way...
7% love the Queen so much they want to replace her with... The Queen
First of course TSE completely ignores the fact the first choice for Head of State amongst all voters is Prince William, who is next but one to the throne anyway. He also fails to mention the Queen is second choice for Conservative voters after William and third choice for voters overall.
He also completely ignores the fact that Sir David Attenborough, a knight of the realm no less, beats Jeremy Corbyn as Labour voters preferred Head of State, a far more significant story I would have thought.
Second, the whole point of having a royal, hereditary head of state is you don't elect it and as long as we have a Tory government there will not be a referendum on the monarchy, it might have been a possibility had the republican Corbyn won but now even Starmer backs a reformed monarchy. As was shown in the 1999 Australian referendum which monarchists won 55% to 45% for republicans it would be perfectly possible for the monarchy to win such a referendum but it would almost certainly only happen under a Labour government in the UK.
I also dispute the census will show we are a non Christian country, I expect a plurality at least to say they are Christians and Christians to come ahead of those defining themselves as non religious or members of other religions.
The monarch has been the Supreme Governor of the Church of England since the Reformation, before that the head of our established Church was the Pope, coincidentally who is still Head of State of the Vatican City anyway as well as being head of the Catholic Church worldwide
Stick to dildos as numbers really isn't your thing.
that having that imposed through birth rather than chosen by the people has a lot going for it...
The equivalent in India would be 16 million in a day
How can "nobody" be an option for "all those expressing a preference"?
lol.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/98804zp4rw/Elected head of state.pdf
A review of how Scottish courts deal with sexual assault cases has suggested that a specialist court is set up for such trials."
https://news.sky.com/story/rape-victims-retraumatised-by-criminal-justice-system-senior-judge-says-12252521
And is it the 1st April
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1373594027879186433?s=19
Germany, 1.095m
Because about a week before the news about the "leaked letter to the BBC" was splashed all over the news, there was a "leaked letter" to the Guardian stating that we would be pushing 6-7million a week by the end of March. At which point there was expected to be a drop off.
Indeed we even talked about it on here quite a lot! Which is why last week's story was so absurd as an "exclusive". Is LauraK claiming she never reads the Guardian?
I suspect from comments here in the past certain national team managers might look a bit nervous
Still, under the planned FPTP election it will be William.
I had no idea politicalbetting.com was so influential.
I suspect in any election campaign the Royals would see their polling collapse as they wouldn’t survive the robustness of an election campaign.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-56474855
(Although the heckling might make Prince Andrew break out into a sweat in the rather unlikely situation of him being the candidate....)
Latest Holyrood poll today has SNP on 46% on the constituency vote and 39% on the list compared to the 46.5% it got on the constituency vote and 41.7% it got on the list in 2016
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1373625695474180096?s=20
The main purpose of a Head of State is not to wield vast political power, or to take decisions affecting the lives of individuals on a vast scale. It is to represent the Country abroad and to provide a unifying and focal point for the nation. Any standard forms of election campaigns, politically based campaigning etc would be counterproductive to that. The winner would be the one who could rise above the fray. It is one reason why most countries (whether filling the role via elections or otherwise) seek to separate the two roles, and keep the HoS role away from party politics. Those that combine the roles run the risk of causing problems when the political leadership aspect conflicts with the symbolic leadership. Traditionally US Presidents have actually done a pretty good job in avoiding that and have always engendered broad public support when carrying out their "Head of State" role. Of course all that was blown up by Trump.
https://twitter.com/terrychristian/status/1373322131858202628?s=20
Call me old-fashioned, but I ca't see that playing well with the softer end of the SNP vote.
Expecting a bit of a swing from SNP -> Can't Be Ersed Party
Too busy living my life to join the fun-and-games of this morning's debate. From the perspective of the one-party State that is Newham, the issue of PR takes on a different perspective. It's less about the Proportional and more about the Representation.
My only thought on this afternoon's humdinger of a thread is the very fact we can take it all so light-heartedly (with one or two predictable exceptions) is testament to the continuity and stability the Queen has brought to the issue. For the vast majority of the UK population, she's the only Head of State we've ever known.
One day, that won't be the case .
"Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got til it's gone" - as someone once opined. That being said, we've retained the Monarchy because the alternative seems so unattractive. To paraphrase another maxim, "you can choose your Presidents, you can't choose your Monarchs".
I suppose it comes down to what role you want your Head of State to play - if you want a figurehead who is above the day-to-day political fray and can launch an aircraft carrier, fine, we may as well stick with what we've got. I think there's more of an argument to be had about the institution and business that is the Crown, in terms of its economic relationship with the country. I'd be looking at the land holdings and the "trappings" and perhaps insisting on greater transparency (I know it's better now than it was).
I'm also of the view the age of deference is at an end - we need to remind the Monarchy they are public servants (by their own admission) and there are elements of how they comport themselves which grate a little if not a lot in the 21st century. Fundamentally, the Monarchy works but that doesn't mean it cannot and should not evolve.
Utter horse shit
Then comes the April slowdown.
Zarah Sultana, a Labour general election candidate for Coventry South, apologised earlier this week for saying she would celebrate the deaths of world leaders including Tony Blair and Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
She said she had been “exasperated by endless cycles of global suffering, violence and needless killing”. Sultana also wrote of her support for “violent resistance” by Palestinians in 2015, the Jewish Chronicle reported.
I wonder who he could mean?
Salmond will then be circling in the waters preparing to strike at a potentially fatally wounded Sturgeon and Boris will be cock a hoop
Instead, we had to make do with the equivalent in one day of the adult populations of Bristol, Bath and Swindon....
Are you watching Ursula?
If only every interaction with the NHS, the state, the banks, energy providers, the internet companies, etc was like that.
The ban is explained by a politically motivated blame game. EU leaders keep discrediting AstraZeneca to deflect attention from their own mistakes and to puncture the notion of a Brexit-related British success story. This short-sighted strategy has backfired quickly. After just two days living under the ban, France and Italy signalled the possibility of a U-turn, as the consequences of their actions became all too clear. Europe is coping with a third wave of Covid; vaccination is the only strategy to get out of the mess. Europe’s leaders have not just harmed this strategy, but inflicted damage to European integration.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/europes-reckless-caution-over-astrazeneca
Are you familiar with the expression 'confirmation bias?'
She has given her virtually the whole of her life to the people of this country and the Commonwealth, as she promised at her Coronation a lifetime ago. We're lucky she's still up for the job at all.
Had the poll been taken when she was a sprightly 85 year old, more people would have voted for her.
Very, very little value.
Still, I can't complain after some splendid bets last season, not least betting on Hamilton to get under 20.5 points finishes (in a 17 race season).