This was last night's Moral Maze, in which I appeared:
I am afraid that is not embedded: you have to go to the website to listen, starting my bit at 27 minutes in.
My argument was that we do not just need to be rid of the monarchy, but need total democratic reform.
The counter-arguments were pretty lame, in my opinion.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Yes, I thought you did ok despite the barracking from those other idiots. Good you got the bit in about PR and general reform of the political system.
“despite the barracking from those other idiots”.
isn’t it called a debate? Thats what happens in a democracy with free speech and people have opposing views..the continuation of the monarchy should go to a referendum and let the public decide
No, not a referendum
We have a parliament, and it needs to decide on this
Refwernda are the tools of fascists
All the ‘Royals’ do is legitimise is wealth at the top of our society as far as I am concerned and this notion that if you are wealthy you must better and more deserving than anyone else.
The are patrons to inequality and that is all.
The first challenge to your argument was that we’d be too stupid to elect someone of decent standing!
The arguments for monarchy from the forelock-tuggers got no better than that did they?
I was pretty staggered by that – and said so
I need to listen to it again Richard. Reading the comments of some of monarchists from the weekend, I do wonder whether a lot of them actually believe in, and care for democracy at all. ‘The queen’s not put a foot wrong….’ against ‘politicians are all in it for themselves, you can’t trust them’ etc etc.
Bonnie Greer in The New European, writing as an American who has lived in the UK for years reckons a lot of British people are scared of democracy. Logically, if you have the views expressed above, you are asserting the divine right of kings argument. The monarch, appointed by God, is infallible, and knows best. So no need for a Parliament or any form of elected representative.
I mentioned divine right, and my distaste for it, right at the start of my comments
‘Refwernda are the tools of fascists’
What? The Swiss would be please to hear this I’m sure as they use referenda as direct democracy. Also, not sure how Nicola Stuergean would take this.
We are not Switzerland
In the rest of the world referenda are the resort of those who believe they can manipulate the vote
As happened here in 2016
I do not think I can agree with you about this. A Referendum may well be manipulated; but so can Parliaments, too easily. Parliaments do not guarantee functional democracy because Parliaments are inveriably the prisoner of Party. Party is subject to corruption, entryism and faction; often from ideological extremes of Left and Right. For example, the public in the UK is invited to dwell on the Labour entryism; but the Conservative Party succumbed to the entryism of Oligarchs.
In Scotland the devolved Parliament embraced proportional representation; but the price of devolution was that Westminter Party interests insisted on d’Hondt: a system that hands power ultimately to Party, and not to the People. Ironically, in local elections in Scotland the STV proportional system is used, which gives power in the list vote directly to the people. Party detests this, and all Parties then criticise the results, because Party cannot dictate the outcomes.
Forgive me, but I think you are looking the wrong place to determine the problem. Party is the problem. The real problem is solving the conundrum of Party. Power corrupts, and Party exists solely to grasp, and keep power.
Noted
Well done for keeping your cool. It sounded like more of an exercise in defending random conflicting attacks than being properly tested as a witness. More like running the gauntlet than taking part in a debate.
Indeed….
well done Richard, great final point !
Thanks
It seems to me that a more fundamental obstacle to democracy in Britain (and elsewhere) than either the monarchy or FPTP is that (a) democracy implies consent; (b) consent is meaningless if not informed; (c) informed consent, in this context, means truly independent media.
(c) we do not have when, as Noam Chomsky observed, media are large corporations selling privileged audiences to other corporations. Chomsky went on to ask: what pictures of the world would a rational person expect from this arrangement?
(The Guardian, unable to cover its expenses with ad-sales, looks to wealthy donors like Bill Gates. As for the BBC, two comments. One, its upper echelons are disproportionately Eton/Oxbridge. Two, and more importantly, the Beeb depends on licence fees set by politicians who themselves fear editorial fulmination by Rothermere’s Mail, and/or are in bed with Murdoch.)
At root, the things you rightly say about referenda apply also – because of the incontestable truth of what Chomsky says – to elections. Don’t get me wrong: I’m for PR. (And against the gerrymandering which, in tandem with PR, effectively disenfrachises so many.) But such issues are eclipsed by that more fundamental obstacle of media’s systemic inability to hold power to account on matters of non negotiable importance to said power.
The guardian sells memberships (which effectively removes ads and the nag screens). It’s not clear how their income breaks down but they have a global audience and claim circa 1m subscribers.
You are correct in that the UK media is a problem. A fairly simple, and I suggest, primary requirement, would be for all UK media owners to be tax-resident in the UK. That includes the likes of Google and Facebook, and for there to be a prohibition against shifting money earned in the UK to tax shelters abroad. Richard could comment on the necessary mechanisms.
They do have U.K. resident vehicles, but that is not sufficient to avoid abuse
Well done Richard. Some of the comments made by the monarchists were pretty poor and no arguments for the monarchy.
Well done, Richard. Fascists seem to like the “emotional” appeal of monarchy. All that pomp and ceremony. Good on the US mitary for refusing Trump’s wish for march-pasts.
There was a referendum in France earlier this year on who should be President.
It was a ballot with two choices on it, so effectively it was a referendum every bit as much as the more traditional kind of referendum such as we had in 2016 where one option is to change nothing.
France is hardly a repository of fascism for having a system which put this question to its people this year.
For the record, I’m aware that France is not the United Kingdom thanks.
Oh don’t be stupid
That was an election
Not only was it an election, what you cite was round 2 of a two-round process in which round 1 had about 11 candidates. Exactly the same 2-round system as for the (upcoming) parliamentary elections. Nothing in common with a referendum.
Indeed
The French system doesn’t work well. Only the two highest scorers qualify for the run off. Three times the second place has gone to the National Front who gain little support from those who didn’t vote for them on the first round. The voters were faced a choice of someone unacceptable to most and whoever topped the poll. The Left some times split their vote. Holland was not popular but was better than Le Pen.
I noticed that in the Australian election the Conservative alliance-the Liberal /National party got more votes than Labor and often topped the poll. With first past the post they would have won. But they have the alternative vote where candidates are ranked 1,2,,3 etc. The lowest candidates votes are then transferred. What I noticed is that most of the transfers, Greens, Independents etc went to the Australian Labor Party.
In Brisbane the Greens were third on the first count and the National/Liberal first. But they ended up as the winners.
This was the reform Nick Clegg had us vote on in 2011. If we had adopted it, the subsequent elections could have been different. We might have avoided Boris.
However, a proper PR system is better.
I thought you made some sound points and kept your cool despite the sometimes ‘at tangent’ challenges. It’s not a programme I particularly like … at least Melanie Phillips wasn’t on the panel. A woman who always gets my goat!
She was on the last time I did it – and I quite enjoyed it
Single Transferable voting in mutiple member constituencies would be my method but disestablishment of the monarchy and changes to the voting system should only be the start. We need wholesale devolution of powers back to local councils since the houses we need will be built locally by workers sourced locally.
A sterling performance Prof Murphy.
The religious-flavoured, nostalgia-riven self-serving interest was very evident throughout the entire show.
Along with the reforms you suggested, do away with House of Lords and a new Second Chamber, reform in the House of Commons , including a necessity for some form of proportional representation,
and to get out of the “a Referendum means ONLY a Yes or No” self-imposed blindness, a ‘National Vote’, with multiple choices e.g. A: Continue with a Monarch B: An elected President C: A Minister(govt. appointed) for State Visits/ Minister for Entertaining D: ??? …. – and voters can choose one OR rank them all in preferential vote. ( I tend to select B. but am open to review if D. E. F. ?? were a better choice. )
Whoever is appointed must have ZERO power.