19 Jul 2010
What defines a democracy? What does democracy actually mean? And is Britain one? The more I think about these questions the less convinced I am that Brtain can be formally described as ‘a democracy’. We are instead a constitutional monarchy. Yes, we have elections for some parts of the state, but that’s it.
Democracy and elections are not the same thing, let’s be clear about that. Elections are a necessary feature of a democracy, but they aren’t the defining feature. A democracy is a society founded on the notion that the people govern themselves, that the people are the highest authority in the land. On that basis Britain’s claim to the accolade is dubious.
Britain has been a constitutional monarchy for centuries. What this means is that all power derives from the Crown, the Crown is the country’s highest authority. But being a constitutional monarchy, rather than an absolute one, much or most of the Crown’s powers are exercised by a parliament. However, that parliament doesn’t necessarily represent the people and the people don’t have complete control over that parliament.
So in Britain the people are denied the status of being the highest authority, there are powers above and beyond the people that can be exercised either by parliament or by the monarch. At the national level the people get no chance of influence beyond electing less than half our parliament every five years. That’s it. More than half our parliament is appointed by party leaders or the Church of England, or are hereditary. Our head of state is also hereditary and completely off limits to the people.
At a sub-national level we get to choose councillors, MSPs and AMs. But the devolved assemblies and councils only exist with the consent of parliament. There is no constitutional principle that bars the national parliament from scrapping the lot if they wished to do so.
In Westminster the attitude is that the government and parliament must be able to do as it pleases. The government takes the view that parliament should simply rubber-stamp its decisions and gets quite irksome when its authority is challenged. Parliament takes the rather pompous view that it is ’sovereign’ and that nothing should ever be able to bind it or limit its authority, not even the will of the people. It’s a pompous and vacuous view given that it tends to bind itself to doing whatever the government wishes it to do.
This top-down structure, which for the most part stops well before it reaches down to the ordinary people, presents itself through rules and laws which make clear how the ‘powers-that-be’ view the voters. We have a very grudging Freedom of Information Act which continues to allow great swathes of information to be kept from the people, we have a monarch who is beyond scrutiny or accountability, whom we are told must be protected as a priority even above and beyond the public interest. We have a parliament that actually believed the people didn’t have a right to see details of its own expenses (so no wonder it has taken a similar view to those of the Windsor family). We have laws which allow government to lock people up without trial, to snoop and spy on people for all sorts of dubious reasons, to amass data on every man, woman and child in the country simply because they wish to. The arrogance and presumption of constitutional monarchy, a system of top-down patronage, is evident in the daily workings of our political system.
It is also evident in the language used in our politics. We hear about government ‘devolving’ power, ‘giving’ power to local communities and so on. But in a democracy power starts with the people, it emanates from us. It is ‘we, the people’ who devolve power. We devolve it to our councils, to our assemblies and to parliament and the head of state.
Britain is not really a democracy. We are a constitutional monarchy that happens to have elections every now and again. The people don’t get much of a chance to influence political debate. Our culture inspires not pride or responsibility in our politics, but deference to power, a desire for others to take responsibility, contempt for those in office and disillusionment with the outcomes.
This entry was posted on Monday, July 19th, 2010 at 7:19 am and is filed under British constitution, freedom of information. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
July 19th, 2010 at 10:52 am
Britain is a democracy. Every country has a different level of democracy, some being more democratic than others, but if you want to ask a simple Yes/NO question then the answer is clearly YES.
2 months ago the British people went to the polls and 60% voted conservative and lib dem, these parties now form the government and are implementing their policies (good and bad policies). As their bills pass through the parliament we elected, they will all be given royal assent by the monarch, as has always happened for centuries.
Are we a perfect democracy? no. We have an unelected house of lords which is currently able to alter our laws, that as far as im concerned is the biggest drain on our democracy.
Its important to look at some international rankings when it comes to democracy. The democracy Index 2008, a widely respected international list of nations shows something very interesting at the top of the list..
1) Sweden – Constitutional Monarchy
2) Norway – Constitutional Monarchy
3) Iceland – Republic
4) Netherlands – Constitutional Monarchy
5) Denmark – Constitutional Monarchy
6) Finland – Republic
7) New Zealand – Constitutional Monarchy/Commonwealth Realm
8.) Switzerland – Republic
9) Luxembourg – Constitutional Monarchy
10) Australia – Constitutional Monarchy/Commonwealth Realm
11) Canada – Constitutional Monarchy/Commonwealth Realm
12) Ireland – Republic.
The UK is 21st out of over 160 nations and is described as a full democracy. Like i say we could certainly improve things by getting rid of the lords and some other changes to the parliamentary system.
But you have to admit it is very interesting to see 4 out of the top 5 democracies are constitutional monarchies, and 8 out of the top 12 are, just 4 republics! lmao.
Constitutional monarchy does not prevent us being a democracy, and all reliable sources prove we are a democracy.
July 19th, 2010 at 11:14 am
I’d say that the countries on the list throw the list into some doubt as to its relevance. I don’t know what criteria they use, but to describe Britain as a ‘full democracy’ is highly questionable.
Denmark is also questionable, given the fact the monarch plays more of a role in the legislative process than ours does.
“Reliable sources” don’t “prove” anything, they simply state their own view according to their own criteria.
It is different to say Britain has some democratic features, or practices some degree of democracy to saying that we are in fact “a democracy”. Given the basis for our government, its lack of accountability between elections (and even at elections) and the fact that we only elect the Commons, it seems clear that we are a constitutional monarchy, as distinct from a democracy.
July 19th, 2010 at 11:19 am
I think that although we can arguably consider ourselves a democracy, until we get rid of the notion that we are the ’subjects’ of one particular individual, we cannot honestly claim to be a 21st century democracy.
July 19th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Graham,
I am sorry but clearly reliable sources say Britain is a democracy, all the sources are far stronger than sources which claim we are not a democracy. Ive said myself we aint a perfect democracy, many changes could improve it, but the fact other constitutional monarchies right at the top of the list proves having a monarchy is not the problem.
The criteria for listing the UK as a “Full democracy” is this…
“Full democracies—scores of 8-10.
Flawed democracies—scores of 6 to 7.9.
Hybrid regimes—scores of 4 to 5.9.
Authoritarian regimes—scores below 4.”
The UK scores 8.15, so infact we are not that far away from being listed as a “flawed democracy”, which shows this ranking is pretty fair. But even if we were in the flawed democracy grouping, wed still be a democracy.
July 19th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Simon
You seem to be missing the point. This isn’t a technical question that can measured with a sliding scale and answered in the definitive. It is a question of interpretation, perspective, values and judgement. There is no right or wrong answer, there is a matter of view.
So the fact that this ‘reliable’ source says we’re a full democracy (and the word ‘full’ for a system in which so few public offices are accountable to the people is a bit odd) is of no consequence to this discussion. It’s of some interest, sure, but it is not providing us with a definitive answer.
July 19th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I agree with you entirely Graham.
Britain to my mind is no way near a democracy. And in fact our elections, rather than serious affairs are merely theatre to entertain the masses and to give people the feeling they are part of a democracy. whilst politicians bicker amongst themselves for a position within parliament.
Just another thing, about those opinion polls concerning the monarchy and such? Well no one has ever asked me to give my answer…
July 19th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
In June this year Pink Paper.com quoted a report from the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association which found that the five most gay friendly countries in Europe are Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Holland and Spain.
Not a single republic in the top five.
Shameful!
July 19th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
Stuart
I too have never been asked questions as part of an opinion poll. Pollsters tend to use groups of around 1,000 people in opinion polls. These people are meant to be representative of the demographics and geography of the country.
Are you suggesting that opinion polls should include the whole population? Perhaps you could clarify your point?
July 19th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Bruno
Are you seriously suggesting that there is any relationship whatsoever between those country’s gay rights records and the fact they have unelected and unaccountable heads of state?
Correlations like that are meaningless and irrelevant. You may as well show us a list that says the sunniest countries all have monarchies.
July 19th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Are you suggesting that opinion polls should include the whole population?
Yes! Otherwise those taking the polls could be asking anyone. Am I right? Bear in mind you will get severely different awnsers depending on where in Britain the questions are asked.
July 19th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Stuart
It’s not an opinion poll if it includes the whole population, it’s a ballot.
Opinion polling is quite scientific and the samples are drawn from a distribution of respondents that covers the demographic spectrums of the wider population. roughly 1100 respondents is enough to be accurate (and many will use 500 respondents).
Obviously they’re not perfect, but they’re a guide rather than an expression of the popular will. Which is why monarchists pointing to support for the monarchy as a reason for having no debate or referendum is a bad argument.
July 19th, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Graham
Thank you for enlightening me.
And yes, we certainly do require debate on almost all matters concerning this country. Thing is though, how is that achieved? Who should be taking part in these debates?
July 19th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
How can we be called a democracy when the correct title for our country is The United Kingdom (bit sexist that, surely we’ve been a Queendom for the last 60 years but I digress).
Those parts of our parliament that we do get to vote for, we don’t get a democratic vote on anyway. Until there is full proportional representation and we are a republic, we are not a democracy.
July 19th, 2010 at 2:50 pm
As I have argued more than once on these blogs that republcans should use the word ‘democracy’ in inverted commas as this country cannot be called a democracy accurately, I am very pleased that Graham has given his considered view on the matter.
It doesn’t matter how often Simon misunderstands the use of the term, we can only vote in one of the three main areas of power in the unwritten constitution, the House of Commons and not for the House of Lords or the sovereign. Not to mention the crown prerogative which belongs in the middle ages. That is not to mention the established Church of England and that English, Anglican male bishops sit in the Lords and act as a block on progressive legislation. We are the ONLY so called Western democracy that allows religious men of what is now a small sect (but with much power and land) this undue privilege. AND we are a theocracy in fact, as there is COMPULSORY worship, usually Christian in not only faith schools but also so-called community schools.
This conmpulsion is the opposite of education, which is from e-ducere, to lead out in Latin.
None of the major parties argued for democracy in the last election – for fairness instead. It is not fair that we cannot live in a democracy actually and vote for a Senate and for a President.
THe queen is supposed to be a unifying factor and queen of all us mere subject but her church is exempted from the EC equality legislation so it can treat women and gays as inferior. This is actually an outrage in the 21st centurt and for anyone who believes in democracy.
July 19th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
The fact that consititional monarchies are amongst the world’s very best for gay rights suggests that constitutional monarchies are not the oppressive,cruel, tyrannical regimes which many of your supporters suggest.
Thanks for explaining to Stuart what an opinion poll is!
Regards. Bruno
July 19th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
“A democracy is a society founded on the notion that the people govern themselves, that the people are the highest authority in the land. On that basis Britain’s claim to the accolade is dubious.”
That says it all for me. We do not govern ourselves but instead vote for an elective dictatorship once every five years. The British people are the victims of a massive deception designed to convince them that they live in a democracy, and that our unelected head of state is the guardian of that democracy, when in fact she is no such thing. I’m still waiting for a monarchist to tell me why Tony Blair was able to sideline parliament so effectively when he was PM.
July 19th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
A dog that is well fed, walked often, given attention and treated generally well is still a pet. A real pity that many royalists see themselves in exactly the same way!
As for gay rights, one wonder how royalists would feel if the heir to the throne was homosexual? Or would any anti-gay discrimination be okay? Especially when this rotten system is already racist, sexist and discriminates on religious grounds.
July 19th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Perhaps due to human nature and imperfection ,there can be no such thing as a 100 percent democracy. True,our country is a democracy,and a very good one in many ways, but it can be a much better one, i.e. a society without the basically undemocratic existence of a monarchy . Gayness, incidentally ,has nothing to do with the republicanism/monarchy issue. Let us sometimes think to ourselves and ponder the question : “What is the true attitude towards gayness of the queen, prince Phillip and the rest of their crew . Any ideas about the Truth folks ?
July 19th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
What we have, in fact, is an elected dictatorship.
July 19th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Bruno, that’s a daft argument, what I believe people call a ’straw man’. You’re setting up a false opposing view (that monarchies are tyrannical) then knocking down with ‘monarchies have good gay rights’. Problem for you is that republicans don’t view monarchies as tyrannical and the gay rights of a country has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of the constitution.
July 19th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Good point well made iMatt. Monarchists cry out to be looked after, republicans want to slip the leash and look after themselves.
July 19th, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Hey Bruno,
Quote from outrage.org.uk:-
“Peter Tatchell was talking in front of the Commonweath asking why the Commonweath was doing nothing to stop the criminalisation of same-sex relations in 40 Commonweath countries”
And guess who’s Head of the Commonwealth?
July 19th, 2010 at 9:19 pm
The Labour Party should have drawn a real distinctive battle line against the Tories on this one.
Sadly it seems none of the so called pragmatists who wish to become leader will draw this battle line either.
The rulers have given the Tories a helping hand in the past to get back in power when needed. This itself makes a mockery of what we should have.
July 19th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Martin G
The commonwealth is simply more of a cultural grouping these days. It is not our place to order certain african country’s to support gay rights. I thought you were against British Imperialism?
You left wingers can not have it both ways. You people wanted an end of empire so these people could run their own affairs, when they do it badly or decide to implement some draconian laws you can not condemn Britain and the Queen for it.
I would happily see Britain and Her Majesty take a more assertive role in the governance of some of these african countries.. But you would be one of the first to complain.
You can not have it both ways. Please make up your mind.
July 19th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Firstly the Commonwealth exists to promote International trade and the spirit of Egilatarianism, which is the polar opposite of the spirit of bigotry.
Secondly, I hope you will make the effort to distinguish between liberal intervention & Imperialism, though intervening seems unlikely, they’re other channels to explore
Lastly, I’d be interested in what role Mrs Windsor should have in Africa.
July 19th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
If we can not elect our head of state then we do NOT have a democracy SIMPLE.
July 20th, 2010 at 12:27 am
@ Simon
Clearly you remain the only person on the planet who does not understand the difference between imperialism and allowing the self-determination of foreign countries for themselves by example and aid. Let me make it easy for you – allow me to quote Samuel P Huntingdon who describes this concept rather elegantly and concisely:-
“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”
I might remind you that Samuel is not some kind of raving-monster-lunatic, hell-bent, nihilist, irrational left-winger who lives under your bed but a republican who worked at various stages for those extreme “Commie so-and-sos”, also known as the United States Government.
(Oh, and it’s quite likely that a sizeable number of countries are lacking in civilised laws because of imperialism creating hatred and prejudice where none existed before.)
Yet again your wit, contribution and arguments are less than zero by any measure you care to apply so you resort to desperate mud-slinging and continuing to cause great offence.
It has been shown on these and other websites that your comments are not only racist, fascist, anti-Irish and almost certainly anti- everything that makes sense, you’ve now just added homophobic to the growing list with your tacit, laissez-faire agreement to the mal-treatment, persecution, torture and execution of a sizeable proportion of the community as another string to your bow.
You make it worse by applying a liberal dose of (misplaced) triumphant glee to your tone.
If you can’t hear what you are saying, your only saving grace will be a plea of insanity. God help the institution that has you coming to it.
July 20th, 2010 at 10:20 am
Martin, the best course of action is to ignore Simon. He has has had ample opportunity to explain why he preferes the current system. Instead he’s rather go round and round in circles, poisoning a forum that should be used for useful discourse and debate. He is blinded by his lack of self confidence, self loathing and racism.
He has nothing to say and is saying it far too loudly.
As I said, there is no medicine for what he suffers from!
July 20th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
iMatt
Is it genuinely your considered opinion that all monarchists are racist,sycophantic, homophobic, stupid and mentally ill?
“Undecideds” reading your comments may get the idea that you can’t debate without being abusive.
Perhaps you should debate the points raised rather than being needlessly offensive.
July 20th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Did I say that all monarchists were mentally ill, stupid or racist? I do NOT question the sanity of monarchists as such unless they make completely off the wall comments as some sadly do. You are as per usual being selective and seeing what you want to see.
I do mention racism as far as Simon is concerned because he HAS made some dubious comments about other countries, cultures and so on. Perhaps you should spend some time looking back at what he has posted. The illness he suffers from is a lack of self worth and cringeworthy sycophancy.
July 21st, 2010 at 12:20 pm
Democracy by definition means a new way of life.
Democratia is the original word from the greeks. So yes we have no new way of life culturally as we have an unelected person who has no role, other than to waste people’s money and bore everyone.
July 21st, 2010 at 5:42 pm
Some nation’s of Britain are more democratic than others with England at the bottom of that particular list.
July 22nd, 2010 at 11:29 am
I agree with Dave above. We can consider ourselves a democracy when all are equal \citizens\ rather than \subjects\ as at present. Look at the national anthem \long to reign OVER us…\. It says it all – the monarchy is \over\ us and we’re all subjects beneath like feudal serfs. I’m not sure Hugo Chavez is a popular source of quotes but he got it right recently when he said \how can you be a democracy and have a queen?\.
July 22nd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
English republic, the idea is a good one, but unlikely for the moment.
July 23rd, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Ash,
I accept there is a difference, however liberals still do their nut if we were to simply link aid to demanding certain cultural or legal changes. So if the European Union and USA said to an africa country, we will end all aid to your country unless you stop discriminating against gay people.. that would likely produce some results.
But that would be seen by the left as the west trying to impose its values on a country and be seen as wrong.
That depends on how far you want Britain to go in its mission to improve civilization on that continent. As head of the Commonwealth, there is very little she can do because it is a loose cultural affiliation.
Michael Morriss
So lots of republics like Germany are not democracies either? They do not have a popular vote for their head of state. Their parliaments appoint someone. In Britains case, over 90% of the vote at the General election in May went to parties who support the monarchy and the Queen as head of state.. A pretty impressive mandate!
iMatt
I have given many reasons why i support the monarchy and made my points extensively. Sadly people here dismiss it or ignore it or in some cases do not care about it. For example, if abolition of the monarchy hurt the union, some here would no care as they support the abolition of the union too. The destruction of our country.
Mike ,
And many people when they sing our wonderful anthem mean every word. I hope the Queen will reign over us for many decades to come. I do not see the problem :\
Speaking of Hugo Chavez, can you remind me what form of political system Venezuela has? Oh yes its a republic and yet another dictatorship
Richard
That is a horrible idea. I do not want to live in an English republic. I am British and loyal to our Queen.
July 23rd, 2010 at 8:58 pm
The UK is a democratic country in all but its head of state, plus the hereditary members of the House of Lords. Whilst the UK is a democratic country for the most part, the monarchy itself is not a democratic institution, although it doesn’t necessarily impede democracy elsewhere.
It is paradoxical though that an hereditary head of state presides over an elected government.
July 25th, 2010 at 11:34 am
I am British ,and a republican,and proud of it !
July 25th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Well said, Barry!
What a pity the Blog seems to have gone quiet again; and what a pity that Simon, who clearly has a tendency to be comment-happy for ages only to suddenly disappear, doesn’t take those long periods of time before resurfacing to come up with some new or at least vaguely original arguments.
July 25th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
jammydodger
I agree that the United Kingdom is a democratic country.
Barry Kingsley,
I am very glad you are proud to be British, sadly some here appear not to be and would have no problem seeing this country broken up. Republic (the organisation) refuses to even take a position on this which is pretty incredible. If this republican movement is a patriotic movement it should not be appeasing separatists.
As you are proud to be British, which is your most important loyalty? (i may have asked this before but cant remember). Would you rather the UK remain united and keep its monarchy or would you prefer an independent Republic of England/Scotland/Wales etc? I have said before, the union comes first to me. If abolition of the monarchy was needed to keep the union together i would support abolition. However from where i am sitting becoming a republic causes far more problems for the union.
Matt Showering
Sadly our country is under threat from many different entities which keeps me busy. From Islamists, left wing extremists, incompetent government, all these problems take up a lot of my time and i sadly can not dedicate too long to here each day. Especially as i consider Republic one of the least biggest threats right now, as every single person here knows the British people will never abolish the monarchy whilst Queen Elizabeth II is alive.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
Simon:
…as every single person here knows the British people will never abolish the monarchy whilst Queen Elizabeth II is alive.
So, you’ve finally acknowledged that the eventual abolition of the monarchy, when it comes, will be the democratic will of the British people and not an arbitrary act of government under pressure from Republic? Well, credit where credit’s due, I suppose.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Matt,
The abolition of the monarchy can only be done by parliament, with the support of the British people. At the moment the British people do not support abolition and the vast majority of those we elect do not support it.
July 25th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
The abolition of the monarchy can only be done by parliament, with the support of the British people.
In which case, Simon, why do you frequently accuse Republic of trying to “force a system of government on the British people which they don’t want”? Even if you’re right insofar as the majority currently don’t want it, you’ve now acknowledged that it can’t happen without the people’s consent. So what’s your problem?
July 25th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
It is nonsense to say we are not a democracy. For you to come on here and say;
“We are a constitutional monarchy that happens to have elections every now and again.”
You are in one state of mind, of having a dream that is never going to happen.
Majority of the British public support the Monarchy, a research by the CDES for the Times states that most people in the United Kingdom wish to keep Britain having a constitutional monarchy.
I think the Queen is a great inspiration to us all, she is what our country is about, I am proud that we have Queen Elizabeth II as our Head of State, she is the defender of faith and may she live for many years to come!
July 25th, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Kyle
You should just read what you posted: how does it add up to any kind of argument?
You claim it’s nonsense to say we’re not a democracy.
You quote me making a statement of fact, that we’re a constitutional monarchy that has elections.
You then go on about how much you love the monarchy and that opininon polls suggest support for the status quo.
How does any of that follow as an argument for the monarchy?
July 25th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
@ Kyle
“You are in one state of mind, of having a dream that is never going to happen”
… you never know! Many dreams have been realised. Look at Ireland – they didn’t want the monarchy and have been a successful republic for over half a century now.
“Majority of the British public support the Monarchy, a research by the CDES for the Times states that most people in the United Kingdom wish to keep Britain having a constitutional monarchy.”
People don’t have a choice. That’s what the problem is.
“I think the Queen is a great inspiration to us all, she is what our country is about”
Right … a multi-multi-millionairess and her family living on taxpayer’s money in excessive privilege? Give over, Britain is about more than that.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Kyle,
Thanks for your input.
“Majority of the British public support the Monarchy, a research by the CDES for the Times states that most people in the United Kingdom wish to keep Britain having a constitutional monarchy.”
Most of the people supported the Witch finder General when we had one, but I’m glad they grew out of that!
The most recent survey from YouGov indicates 54% believe we should abolish or reform Monarchy. The only problem with reforming is it could cause issues to the existence of Monarchy, so sadly the Coalition announced they’ll simply leave this one alone. On this basis alone, you’ll probably see a number of monarch supporters decline.
” think the Queen is a great inspiration to us all, she is what our country is about, I am proud that we have Queen Elizabeth II as our Head of State, she is the defender of faith and may she live for many years to come!”
This is a classic example of making an argument by asserting the notion. Simple question, what is so inspiring?
And no, Mrs Windsor does not hold the title of ‘defender of faith’, that’s the title her son has expressed a desire to use.
For me, there are no finer titles than Mr, Mrs & Miss.
July 25th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Graham Smith,
An opinion poll based on what the British public think of our constitution and most support how it is right now, your case has never been weaker, can you give me one bit of evidence to suggest that the British public support the Break up of OUR Monarchy?
You probably can’t.
And if we did want the Monarchy dissolved there would be a public out cry on a bigger scale than this website.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Kyle,
If the monarchy were revealed to be what they truly are, rather than what people think they are (thanks to the palace PR machine, which is permanently in overdrive), then the public would take a different stance.
Why do you think the royals are so keen to keep their finances secret? Or to keep their extravagances and luxurious lifestyles hidden? Or how many hours they *really* work a week? Because they know that’s what the public will applaud. Because they want to be seen as humble, hard-working, and honest. And they are NONE of those things! They are selfish, arrogant millionaires.
If you’re so sure about the monarchy’s strong position in the UK, then you’d have no problem about them relinquishing their exemption from the Freedom of Information Act or having a government auditor going over their finances with a toothcomb. But the royals won’t have that, because they know there’d be uproar when the public found out the truth.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Ash,
The Queen is like a Grand Mother figure to many British people. Only a very small % want to abolish the monarchy, 54% is very misleading. The Polls would need to be well over 80% for me to consider that the British public would want to end the Monarchy. The poll from the Times shows 85% in Support of our Monarchy.
All of the people in support of the break up still can’t give me solid evidence of the British public wanting to end the monarch, I can only come to the conclusion from polls and from me doing a local surveys and web surveys that most of us wish to remain a constitutional monarchy.
Your a minority, I may be young (only 16) but my faith for the crown will never die, me and my friends will fight to the bone and we will never see the end to our Queen and Monarch, you hear me?!!
July 25th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Matt,
Because the overwhelming majority of British people support the monarchy. You seek to impose some foreign republic on us, we do not want it. The people must elect republicans if they want us to become a republic, until they do and whilst polls show majority support for the monarchy.. the will of the British people is clear.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
jammydodger
I don’t care what we spend on our Monarchy, they get what they deserve, they keep the British Identity strong! The Monarchy as a Tourist attraction and a study done by the EMCC stated that the Tourist industry made by the monarch generates just a little more than the Monarchy Expenditure itself.
You need to look into your studies more.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:45 pm
Kyle
“The Queen is like a Grand Mother figure to many British people. Only a very small % want to abolish the monarchy, 54% is very misleading. The Polls would need to be well over 80% for me to consider that the British public would want to end the Monarchy. The poll from the Times shows 85% in Support of our Monarchy.
All of the people in support of the break up still can’t give me solid evidence of the British public wanting to end the monarch, I can only come to the conclusion from polls and from me doing a local surveys and web surveys that most of us wish to remain a constitutional monarchy.
Your a minority, I may be young (only 16) but my faith for the crown will never die, me and my friends will fight to the bone and we will never see the end to our Queen and Monarch, you hear me?!!”
I don’t know what I find the most disturbing. You considering a stranger to be a Grand motherly figure, or threatening to fight ‘to the bone’ for her.
You’re right on one point, we remain a minority.
We do not have a shred of evidence to say we are of a majority, because at this moment in time, we’re not.
From what I can see (I’ll admit this isn’t evidence), the movement is growing, people are because more indifferent to Monarchy, and are aspiring to more grown up politics.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:48 pm
Kyle. Perhaps you can provide a link to this tourism study?
July 25th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
Simon, your logic is clearly flawed. We will only get a republic by democratic means, as you say. So we cannot and are not trying to ‘force’ republicanism on anyone.
July 25th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
“I think the Queen is a great inspiration to us all, she is what our country is about, I am proud that we have Queen Elizabeth II as our Head of State, she is the defender of faith and may she live for many years to come!”
So Kyle, how does Liz Windsor inspire YOU? Does she encourage you to strive to do well at school? Does she make you a better natured person? Or does she simply inspire you in a devine, god-like sense?
I can HONESTLEY say that I find the likes of Muhammad Ali, Clint Eastwood and Steven Speilberg far more inspiring!
July 25th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Ash Walsh
Like I said, there is no evidence to suggest that the British public want the break up of our Monarch nor is there evidence of the “rise” of support of the republic and dissolving the monarch.
We have more than 10 thousand troops in Afghanistan fighting for Queen and Country are they disturbing too? you are the one who disturbs me, you persist to stick in the motion that you think you know it all! we guess what? no one on this site does, I have have evidence to support my claims, but I fail to see your evidence which you have admitted you have none!
In my view the case has never been stronger, the British public are continuing to show there greatest support for the Monarchy polls and surveys say it! (Not a misleading 54%).
GOD SAVE Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith!
July 25th, 2010 at 9:57 pm
iMatt
“Does she encourage you to strive to do well at school? Does she make you a better natured person? Or does she simply inspire you in a devine, god-like sense?”
Thanks for answering your own Question, you have wrote my reply straight from your own head!
Deep down you know this is true its just hidden deep in your misguided head.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:00 pm
Graham Smith
Its a widely known fact that the Monarch generates a great amount of Tourism to London and other parts of the United Kingdom, the media continue to talk about that fact time and time again.
The monarchy costs so little in comparison to the Greatness it delivers to the British Public, I love the fact we have a Queen and a Monarch..We need to Pride ourselves of that fact instead of moaning about it!
July 25th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Ash Walsh,
People look up to the Queen in different ways, some viewing her as a Grandmother figure highlights how strongly people feel about our gracious Queen and why it would be very hard for people to see the monarchy abolished and replaced with some politician that none of us have respect for. She has been there throughout most peoples lives, providing stability and being a great symbol of our nation.
I understand it may disturb republicans but people should not be shocked that many of us our loyal to our Queen and large numbers would fight for her if need be. This is an important bond and a reason why our army take the oath to serve and defend the Queen. I wouldnt want it any other way.
Kyles respect and loyalty for the Queen at his age is something to be welcomed. If only more young people felt the same way, sadly too many are influenced by the left wingers in control of our education system, defended by far left unions and assisted by the trade unions political wing commonly known as the Labour Party.
It is good you accept republicans are in a minority. This is without any doubt the case. Republic as an organisation may be growing, something i do find disturbing and highlights some of the problems our nation is facing. i do not get your point about grown up politics. We are talking about our head of state. most of us do not want politics to dominate such a position but that is what we will get if we abolish the monarchy.
Graham,
Republicans here are not violent, which is good and i was glad at the way some responded to some of Eclubs comments who seemed to be inciting a full scale violent rebellion and revolution in our country from the USA. However you do seek to impose a republic on us. It is not something i want, and you will force it on me in the same way as you may view the monarchy is “forced” on you.
What i do not understand is why republic does not stand for parliament. This is what the SNP did from in the early 20th century. It took them a long time but then they made a break through and their cause has been furthered by our left wing politicians. Republic should seek democratic legitimacy, not snipe from the side lines condemning everything about the monarchy.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
Kyle
“GOD SAVE Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith!”
I don’t know who’s benefiting from you repeating this tripe. Is it you to ensure you ‘keep the faith’?
I’ve never claimed to ‘know it all’ & never will.
One great tradition that is worth indulging in is acknowledging the extent of your own ignorance (Socrates).
The opinion poll (with the result of 54% supporting abolition or reformation) is NOT misleading, because quite simply, anyone can look it up on the YouGov website.
If you get comfort from being in a majority, that’s fine.
But it is not an argument to say you’re right.
Even if evidence existed stating it was the Republicans who are in the majority, I would not see it as my duty to provide it. I’d simply continue making my case for the majority to increase.
My logic, by the way in thinking the support for Monarchy will continue to dwindle is partially rooted in the fact that more & more people aspire for grown up politics, and as time goes on, it’ll become more & more apparent that Monarchy is a roadblock to reform.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:06 pm
So kyle by asking you a few questions, I’m misguided….OOOKAAAYYY!!
Then HOW does she inspire you to do well at school, be a better natured person and inspire you from above? Help me out here. I mean, do you have a photo of Liz Windsor in your coat pocket or is it a mental image of her in you head telling you “I think you can, I know you can!”.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Kyle.
Here’s a simple truth for you: something being repeated over and over doesn’t make it a ‘fact’. We know it is a widely believed myth that the monarchy brings in tourism, but where is the proof?
You mentioned a study, do you have a link to this study that offers proof of this assertion? If you have no proof then your assertion is irrelevant.
Secondly, let’s entertain the idea, just for the sake of argument, that the monarchy brings in tourism and that, because of this phenomenon, we should therefore keep the monarchy.
What that argument is basically saying is this:
1 – Our democracy and our constitution come second to making a quick buck. Profit over principle is what matters to you. The same argument can of course be used to justify the arms trade and prostitution. Forget principles, it’s the money in our pockets that matters.
2 – By allowing our constitution to be determined by what foreign visitors find enjoyable and entertaining you’re saying that citizens of other countries should determine what the British constitution should look like.
Neither of those positions appears either patriotic, sensible or remotely principled to me.
You again go on to confuse argument with the assertion of your own feelings. The debate about the British constitution does not hinge on whether ‘Kyle’ things the Queen is ‘great’.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
Kyle:
Are you seriously expecting us to believe that you are motivated to succeed academically by our unelected and constitutionally useless head of state, or that she makes you want to be a better person?
Those things I find downright bizarre. But as a practising Christian, I find it deeply disturbing that you appear to feel the need for God’s message to be conveyed through a monarch. I thank the good Lord that I can find Him without the need for a physically existent but actually distant would-be intermediary.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Simon… again, we are not forcing anything on anyone. If the British people decide they want a republic it is not being forced, it is being chosen. Our job is to persuade people to make that choice.
We don’t stand for parliament because we aren’t interested in seeking power or in governing Britain. We’re not a political party, we are a campaign group united by a single mission. We are comparable to the Electoral Reform Society, Liberty, Amnesty International etc etc. Our job is to gain support among politicians and the wider public, not to win power.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Ash Walsh
I am talking about Politics now!
You go on and on about what will happen, I’ll tell you what is happening now: The British public continue to support our monarchy and they feel it may have to be changed a small tiny % of that group who want “change” what to dissolve the monarchy of our country.
It is misleading its a tiny percentage, we need real solid and a % to go on for you to make a case. I get the feeling that you feel out numbered because your right your a minority, and we the British public as a Majority feel the need to support our Monarch its the backbone of the Nation.
God Save the Queen!
July 25th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Matt Showering
I don’t care what you believe, I love my Queen and country I will defend my Queen and Country what ever the costs, I’m not saying I will join the Military but if a world war came up and put Children and the rest of the British Public at risk I will fight for my Queen and country, not some elected meaningless moron.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Funny, last time I looked, Republic were a PRESSURE group, NOT a POLITICAL PARTY. That’s like saying that other groups / charities that were formed around a particular issue such as Greenpeace, The Howard League for Penal Reform and Liberty should form political parties.
And indeed, what about think tanks that try to influence govornment policies? Should they stand for parliament too?
July 25th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Kyle
More than half of the poll cannot be considered a ‘tiny minority’ & I don’t think I’m the only one to have noticed you have not yet made your case as to why you (and not the 85% of the public) support the Monarchy.
‘Being outnumbered’ is something I personally dwell on. Even if 99.9% supported Monarchy, I’d support the 0.01%.
Supporting the underdog, FA Cup style. That is a fine tradition, is it not?
July 25th, 2010 at 10:29 pm
Graham Smith
I dont have the link to the study and theres no point even trying to find it because you seem to think the media will tell lies for the palace.
I trust the media more than an on-line campaign group.
These points you come up with are biased because its just your own opinion dragged along with people who WANT to believe it.
I believe in the Monarchy for other reasons than just tourism that’s only one of many points.
God Save the Queen!
July 25th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
Kyle:
if a world war came up and put Children and the rest of the British Public at risk I will fight for my Queen and country, not some elected meaningless moron.
Thank you for being so forthright in your open contempt for democracy. Why go to all this trouble trying to prove that the overwhelming majority of Britons support the continuation of the monarchy, when you clearly have not the slightest interest in the will of the people?
July 25th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
Ash
The comment on the poll is misleading because you are grouping people who would support moderate reforms with those who seek abolition of the monarchy.
I support some limited reforms of our constitutional monarchy. You could not put me in the same category as a group that support abolition. Just mention the numbers for those who oppose the monarchy if you wish to quote polls.
You mention grown up politics again. I dont want politics ruining the position of head of state. As for monarchy being a roadblock to reform, we will have an elected second chamber in 5 years time. That will deal with the biggest drain on our democracy.
Graham,
The debate about our constitutional future does hinge on if the British people think the Queen is great and future monarchs too. Us monarchists must accept the fact that our monarchy is dependent on good monarchs, if we have a very bad one that the British people do not support.. the monarchy will fall. Whilst some have concerns about Prince Charles, a majority still want the continuation of the monarchy.
Matt Showering
Stranger things have inspired people to fight or accomplish things.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
“These points you come up with are biased because its just your own opinion dragged along with people who WANT to believe it.”
It’s funny you should say that, Kyle.
I was thinking the same thing about Tourism, our troops fighting for the Queen & the ‘elected meaningless moron’ who will hopefully succeed sooner or later.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Ash Walsh
That’s nice Ash, you have your own opinions.
The British public overwhelmingly support a monarch so guess what? We have one.
You have to face that fact, this campaign will only make us who support the Monarch stronger and encourage us to fight back with force to defend our Queen!
July 25th, 2010 at 10:47 pm
Kyle,
Would you care to finally tell us why you (& only you) support the British Monarchy Y/N?
If it’s any help, you could start you sentence “I support the British monarchy because……”
July 25th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Kyle:
You have to face that fact, this campaign will only make us who support the Monarch stronger and encourage us to fight back with force to defend our Queen!
And the more trolls like you who come on here regurgitating the same old rubbish again and again, the more motivated we will be to campaign for a no-holds-barred public debate on Britain’s constitutional future and a popular affirmation of the democratic constitution which we so greatly desire, and which the country so badly needs.
July 25th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Ash Walsh
I support our Monarchy because it is a Unique British Identity that defines us from any other country in the world, it is the most famous and respected and it makes me feel proud to be British. The Queen is a National treasure and symbol and for us to lose her would be a great shame, I have faith in our Monarch I would fight for Queen and country if I had to do so!
The Monarchy is what this country is about and like I said it defines us from the rest of the world!
July 25th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Kyle:
I support our Monarchy because it is a Unique British Identity that defines us from any other country in the world…
Erm, apart from the 15 other countries that have Elizabeth Windsor as (absentee) head of state, LOL!
O, and by the way, I think you’ll find it’s “distinguishes us,” not “defines us.”
July 25th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Matt Showering
Yes former parts of the BRITISH Empire. The monarchy is seen as “British” around the world, and it does make the country Unique to others.
By you correcting me does that make you feel more intelligent?
Your such a arrogant fool.
July 25th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Kyle,
Thanks for your insight.
You’ll go with what you look for in a Head of State.
The British Monarchy is a very well recognised brand, but there are lots of things that define Britain.
I suspect the British people would prefer to be identified as being part of a nation which is democratic & treated others as their equal. These qualities are an antithesis of what Monarchy stands for.
Personally, I feel there are practical issues which are far more important than the symbolism you subscribe to.
July 26th, 2010 at 6:48 am
I see Kyle, so you will just believe something because it fits your view regardless of whether or not there’s any evidence for it.
You say there are other reasons, but aside from “I like the Queen because I like the Queen” I’ve not seen any other reasons. Saying it makes Britain unique isn’t an argument, it’s clearly not correct as Britain (and all other countries) is always going to be unique. And uniqueness is not a virtue in and of itself. Saudi Arabia is unique, doesn’t mean their system of government is any good.
July 26th, 2010 at 7:35 am
Kyle:
Yes former parts of the BRITISH Empire. The monarchy is seen as “British” around the world, and it does make the country unique (compared) to others.
The Windsor monarchy may indeed be seen as ‘British’ around the world, but that is all the more reason for those independent countries which were once part of the Empire, to take that final symbolic step towards complete independence and bolster their democracies in the process.
Above all, that association gives us every good reason to do something about our constitutional arrangements quickly: because I don’t know about you, but I’d rather Britain was associated throughout the world with democracy, openness, egalitarianism and transparency than dictatorship (elective or otherwise), behind-closed-doors government, inequality and je-ne-sais-quoi (which is naturally the most quintessentially British of concepts, is it not?)
By you correcting me does that make you feel more intelligent?
Your such a arrogant fool.
I’m not arrogant, but if you’re going to make such sweeping statements about what defines Britain, then at least have the decency to make them in good English! “Your such a arrogant fool” – case in point!
July 26th, 2010 at 8:20 am
Kyle,
“I don’t care what we spend on our Monarchy, they get what they deserve, they keep the British Identity strong! The Monarchy as a Tourist attraction and a study done by the EMCC stated that the Tourist industry made by the monarch generates just a little more than the Monarchy Expenditure itself.
You need to look into your studies more”
Perhaps you should look into YOUR studies more and provide actual figures to back up this fantastical tourism claim. Tell me, how much money is generated by the Royal Family alone? Good luck finding a figure, because there isn’t one! It’s just a myth that people blindly believe.
As for keeping British identity strong, it’s the opposite – it’s monarchical identity, not British. They killed off other forms of patriotism by ensuring nationalism was channeled through them and that they are positively worshipped by people (such as yourself).
And value for money – pfft .. that is pure personal opinion. In that case, I suggest our MPs with their expenditure is great value for money, since it works out much less than the royals. After all, the MPs do the hard job of actually running the country, not just shaking hands …
July 26th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Kyle
“The British public overwhelmingly support a monarch so guess what? We have one”
Lol that’s not the way it works. Rather, we have a monarchy, therefore people support it.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Kyle is going to be desolate when his queen eventually proves that she isn’t immortal, she is in her eighties after all and Kyle is only 16. That will be Kyle’s ‘Doctor Who’ moment when he will transfer his affections to prince Charles, who will, at a moments notice, morph into the rabid monarchists’ emotional crutch. Never mind that Charles will probably intensify his meddling in what democracy we do have, never mind that we won’t know either way because he will have blanket exemption from FOI, (given him by the politicians monarchists revile), and never mind that the monarchy’s pernicious effect on our society will continue unabated. Just so long as the sycophants have their emotional crutch to lean on.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
@ Kyle,
Welcome to the debate.
The Norman monarchy seized power violently in 1066 and within a coupe of decades had replaced practically all the former English administrative positions with its own kind and seized much of the land from the conquered population.
For over a 1000 years, the monarchy has propogated itself, despite sometimes strong countered undercurrents over the centuries, and remains in power today by the means of patronage, secrecy, aloofness and being outside the law. The realm is not averse to using violence as a means of containing power and a basic knowledge of history will realise many examples of this.
In order for proper debate to flourish, openness must prevail. If the Queen is such a good public servant, she must be willing to be open to scrutiny and accountability.
Once we have all the facts, we can have a proper and informed discussion. We can also educate people in matters of state, the monarchy and the pros and cons of having a republic (or not, for that matter).
We haven’t even reached first base with any of those points yet and the monarchy relies more and more on the blind faith approach of its subjects to keep it propped up.
Until we get all the facts, starting with full inclusion under the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else in this country, we are basically subject to a cover-up.
If you prefer that people should be made to wander around in a haze not knowing or caring what the truth really is, this illustrates how much enlightenment is required to get an even and informed view.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
Bob Wiggin
It is going to be very very painful for many of us when Queen Elizabeth II dies. Of course if we were a republic we would have been denied such a wonderful head of state for almost 60 years who the British people love and support.
It is of course going to be hard to adjust at first, for the vast majority of the population we have known nothing other than Queen Elizabeth II. That will be when the other commonwealth realms become Republics and there may be some debate here about it, but considering the flaws in the alternative system, as polls suggest, most will continue to support the monarchy. So many may not be as passionate about it with King Charles, but we will have to wait and see.
Prince William offers huge potential, one day that fine prince will make a great King that can help strengthen the monarchy. Especially when the Princes babies start arriving. The media and public love a royal birth, and a royal wedding when the time is right.
July 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
Charles won’t have the same respect the Queen has, of that you can be sure! William probably will, though.
July 26th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
Dear Kyle,
God Save The British People !( from the monarchy).
July 26th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
SIMON SAID – “Prince William offers huge potential, one day that fine prince will make a great King that can help strengthen the monarchy. Especially when the Princes babies start arriving The media and public love a royal birth, and a royal wedding when the time is right.”
In just one paragraph Simon sums up the sycophants’ charter. Not a single argument in support of the institution of monarchy, not any defence of monarchy’s pernicious effects on our society, just blind adoration as per usual. Pass the bucket.
July 26th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
What kind of self-respecting adult writes this kind of thing?
And Simon, sorry to disappoint, but on the past successions there’s a good chance it will be Harry or someone else being King after Charles, not William – assuming we haven’t got rid of the whole wretched institution by then.
July 26th, 2010 at 8:20 pm
I’m glad Simon admits the royal circus is stage managed with ‘timing’. But it hasn’t always been like that.
It is only in the last decade they’ve felt the need to justify themselves.
Assuming the establishment survives, in this climate of scrutiny, that so called ‘fine prince’ will have to wait many gloomy years waiting, probably ending up even more washed up & zoned out than his father.
July 26th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Evening Ash.
Assuming the establishment survives, in this climate of scrutiny, that so called ‘fine prince’ will have to wait many gloomy years waiting, probably ending up even more washed up & zoned out than his father
The big question with William, I think, is whether he will become an activist king-in-waiting like his father – no doubt choosing some completely new areas of public policy to meddle in – or whether he will dutifully accept the excrutiatingly weird life of a full-time ‘working royal’ and keep his mouth shut. Hopefully, though, for his sake as well as the people’s, our campaign will bear fruit in time for him to be given a real choice as to what to do with most of his life.
July 26th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
Evening Matt,
The big question with William, I think, is whether he will become an activist king-in-waiting like his father – no doubt choosing some completely new areas of public policy to meddle in – or whether he will dutifully accept the excruciatingly weird life of a full-time ‘working royal’ and keep his mouth shut.
It remains to be seen. I can almost hear the Monarchists trying to will the Monarchy to ‘cling on’ in a Brownite manner, and come through the roughshod era of Charles Windsor blundering through a decade or two, and hoping a fresh faced Twenty something takes over the realms whilst grinning.
July 28th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Great Britain is far from being a full democracy when compared to America, we dont have an elected head of state the nearest is the prime minister and we need a broad freedom of information act, not the 100yr and 80yr rulings on census and military records. out so called national anthem only lauds the select few living in a town house off hyde park corner. the sovereign of great Britain is great Britain itself and how can the queen called parliament my government when none of the royals have a right to vote. an elected head of state would remove all the arguments about catholics and eldest girl children becoming the head of state, this is the year 2010 for pity’s sake and not the year 1020
July 31st, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Graham, you are spot on with this blog. There is a subtext to what you are saying and it is the systemic nature of the British Establishment, which is made up of the Church, The aristocracy, the monarchy and the public schools. All are deeply conservative and share a kind of authoritarian attitude. I puzzled about this for many years but it was after my degree at London Univ. during which I read a lot of Plato that it finally clicked. The Establishment LOVES the Greeks and Romans. There is so much evidence for this.
If you look at much of the architecture of Oxford city centre for example, what do you find? The sheldonian theatre has Roman busts surronding it.The degree ceremonies are held in Latin. The public schools teach Latin and Greek, Boris Johnson wrote a book extolling the Roman Empire. The most important philosopher behind all this is Plato and his philosophy is profoundly anti-democratic. The philospher Karl Popper wrote a two volume book called \the open society and its enemies\ in which he attacked Plato. As a result it is widely believed that he was not offered the chair of philosphy at Oxford because of his writing of that book.This was back in 1945.
I believe the alternative set of beliefs that republicans have to offer is rooted in the Enlightenment and that these values have a lot to offer.