Why do we need a Head of State?

I think the answer is that it’s a kind of balance against the PM. Presidents obviously have more power than our King. But the combination of a second house and King prevent the PM and government pointing things To far in any one direction

You're missing an absolute cornerstone of British culture here, whether stated explicitly or not, We operate a (proportionate) Blame culture. We like need to have people in 'Figurehead' roles to point at loudly proclaim to be the cause of all our problems, grumble a bit more, then carry on.

Without one or two people symbolically sat atop the social/political piles of shite that make up our great nation's structures it would all come tumbling down...

You’re missing an absolute cornerstone of British culture here, whether stated explicitly or not, We operate a (proportionate) Blame culture. We like need to have people in ‘Figurehead’ roles to point at loudly proclaim to be the cause of all our problems, grumble a bit more, then carry on.

Without one or two people symbolically sat atop the social/political piles of shite that make up our great nation’s structures it would all come tumbling down…

Oh, absolutely, I'm not saying we don't need Someone At The Top, for both running-the-place and the subsequent blame-apportioning purposes, what I'm saying is why do we need two people at the top, the PM and the King/President/Whatevs?

I think it goes back to the Magna Carta and how power was structured through that.
No idea of the details though, other than some lords wanted a bit more control because they didn't like the way the king was running things but he still wanted the king at the top to pull together under/blame (depending on how things went).

I think in the UK its mostly symbolic really, although I guess all governments and nations need a separate personal who's above all the petty politics to be the physical embodiment of a nation, some-one who can "pronounce" or can "open the government session" and by the same token be the person who has the powers that "close the session" if it all gets a bit Black uniforms stern looks and Roman salutes...

i suppose it's better than Russia where you have Putin who's head of carnage and corruption, compared to Germany where the president is more benign. Big scale of variance.

Presidents obviously have more power than our King. But the combination of a second house and King prevent the PM and government pointing things To far in any one direction

If you compare our government to the USA then it's not that dissimilar in many ways.

PM = President
Cabinet = Cabinet
Back Benches = Congress and Senate

The only issue is that constitutionally (or Magna Carta'lly if you're pedantic) you need someone to formally organize it, and whichever way you do it isn't infallible. Remember under the USA's system was only able to inaugurate Biden as President because Mike Pence resisted Trump.

So who do you trust more, Charles, or the deputy PM who was probably selected from the parties fringe to appease them. Can you imagine Braverman/Farage/Mogg in that scenario? So I'd argue that a hereditary role is probably as good as any. The other options being democratic (where the person is probably from the same mould as the person you're trying to elect out of office), random selection or as a lot of the world seems to default to but never with good results, the head of the army?

The Head of State is basically a symbol of the nation, it's a person who represents the country for ceremonial duties. The Head of Government actually has power to do things. They can be the same person, but in modern Britain, the Monarch has purely ceremonial duties.

I understand the desire to abolish the hereditary monarchy, but if that happens, some other way of choosing a Head of State would be needed. A democratically elected HOS would bring other problems, for example, people who voted for the winner would expect them to take an active role in politics. If the HOS was appointed by Parliament (like Governors General in other countries), then you would have campaigning for the position etc.

(Before people start accusing me of being a monarchist, I personally think that the best long-term thing to do would be an appointed Governor General type HOS, appointed for a fixed term of maybe 10 years, but I also don't think it's something that should be done without a referendum and broad popular support).

Tradition.

International relations.

Tourism.

For all that royal 'power' has largely been lip service for years despite squeals about "meddling," I still quite like the idea of having a hail mary contingency plan given the route our current government is heading. I yearn for the day that Charlie tells Rishi Rich to get ****ed.

We should, IIRC, find a Swiss correspondent on this topic.

why do we need two people at the top,

Well they serve slightly different purposes, Focus all your Class-based rage and resentment on HRH, and your frustrations at how the political, legal and logistical side of the nation is being mismanaged on whichever goon in a suit occupies No10. this week...

Unlike other countries we have over-developed our ideas on 'Class' and part of keeping the great unwashed in line is maintaining that stratification by giving people a means to vent, or tug their forelock in patriotic supplication. It's all part of maintaining a dysfunctional status quo that has somehow worked (for the most part) for a fair old while... The British don't really do much Rioting or have insurrections anymore, we complain to each other about stuff, assign some blame to the visible figureheads and then pop out the bunting and wave a flag...

Other nations don't have such ridiculous class structures and hence don't need that reinforcing with a monarchy...

The U.S. President is both the Head of State and Head of Government (and the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces). A British P.M. is only the Head of Government, but is also the leader of the majority in the legislature. In the U.S., the majority leader in the House of Representatives is not a cabinet minister and more often than not, from a different party than the President. The cabinet is appointed by the President and they are not members of the legislature, so the executive and legislative branches are nearly totally separated (the Vice-President having a tie-breaking vote in the Senate being a major exception to this).

The theory of separation of powers in a U.S. style presidential system is nice, but presidential systems cause huge problems. I think that Westminster style parliamentary systems (with some type of proportional representation electoral system) are much more effective in practice.

Just that continual reminder of the haves and the have nots.

So don't get any ideas above your station.

I guess all governments and nations need a separate personal who’s above all the petty politics to be the physical embodiment of a nation

No, they don't need one (USA, Russia), but many do.

This whole idea that Brits are too thick to elect a ceremonial Head of State to meet dignitaries, hand out medals, open swimming pools and perhaps be the voice of the nation on holidays and tragedies...is total nonsense. Ireland does it fine. So does Israel.

 A democratically elected HOS would bring other problems, for example, people who voted for the winner would expect them to take an active role in politics.

Rubbish.

This whole idea that Brits are too thick to elect a ceremonial Head of State to meet dignitaries, hand out medals, open swimming pools and perhaps be the voice of the nation on holidays and tragedies…is total nonsense.

The potential problem is that an election will require candidates to campaign for the job, which means they need to market themselves as different and better than their rivals. Just imagine if a wealthy right-wing reality TV star with a long history of tax evasion and sexual assault campaigned on a slogan of "Make UK Great Again" and won, then declared that he would not sign into law any legislation that he disagreed with. For example, if he refused to allow any progressive taxation or spending on foreign aid. Or, if he refused to accept a Prime Minister that he didn't like (see Gough Whitlam, for example). I know, the general population would never be silly enough to elect someone like that to an important job, but it's a useful thought experiment.

This whole idea that Brits are too thick to elect a ceremonial Head of State to meet dignitaries, hand out medals, open swimming pools and perhaps be the voice of the nation on holidays and tragedies…is total nonsense.

You've been following recent cases of allowing the British public the opportunity to express a preference, right?

In the U.S., the majority leader in the House of Representatives is not a cabinet minister and more often than not, from a different party than the President.

Which is why it's taken them >50 years after WW2 to get to something approximating universal healthcare whereas we did it in 5. They only have effective* government for 2 out of every 8 years. Which means that only 2 in 16 years are on your side.

*as in, can get anything done. The other side would argue that the government arguing with itself and not doing anything is the most effective way to run a government!

Tradition

Cool lets bring back capital punishment.

International relations.

In some cases, mostly backward countries which have absolute monarchies themeselves, but it isnt clear overall outside the whining of the royalists that this is true. Generally they just squeal its true and expect everyone else to doff their caps.

Tourism

Yeah France etc does so badly.

For all that royal ‘power’ has largely been lip service for years despite squeals about “meddling,” I still quite like the idea of having a hail mary contingency plan given the route our current government is heading

AH yes the schrodingers monarchy. Sadly though despite the well proven evidence of their interference in democracy you have to be pretty dumb to even begin to dream they would interfere in the countries as opposed to their own interests.

Just to be clear, before this gets diverted into "why do we need the Monarchy?", that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking why we need a Head of State as well as a PM?

I too do struggle to know why the PM can't also be the head of state.....or rather not why they could not be now, but why you couldn't sort the rules so they were.

If we had to have someone different I'd be up for some sort of papal system rather than a public vote - lock all the MPs in a room until they choose one. But, to make sure we don't have a total fruitcake you set the majority vote bar really high - like 80% so the person who gets it must have cross party support.

Then who gets on the candidate list - It could go either way - someone who has been in the house for 30+ years or alternatively it could be they have never been in politics. Basically trying to rig the system so it's a David Attenborough or Ken Clarke type of person.

Lastly - could the job be a little bit like the speaker of the commons - once they get the gig their personal opinions on the political matters of the day are never heard. What constitutes 'politics' is of course a murky concept.

Lastly – could the job be a little bit like the speaker of the commons – once they get the gig their personal opinions on the political matters of the day are never heard. What constitutes ‘politics’ is of course a murky concept.

I can't see any particular reason why the speaker couldn't be the head of state?

Trouble with any larger democratic means is it would end up with the same issue as the US where you either end up with absolute power, or none. Next best option would be maybe elect one immediately before a GE, so that at least the HoS is going to respect the result of the GE. Then split the power such that the PM (and rest of government) has all the power, and all the HoS does is rubber stamp their election.

So she asked, and I couldn’t really answer – why do we need a Head of State? Couldn’t we function quite happily without one?

If she's ever served on a committee then she would understand why there has to me 'someone' at the top.

I think principally we have the Royal HoS because it deflects the woke leftie tofu eating underclass from realising that its the government that has been ****ing them over for the last 200 years.

Then, when the right wing political/media elite decide its time, they can pour oil on the flames and incite a republican referendum while quietly selling off palaces and treasures to their mates at bargain prices as it is clearly "the will of the people".

I meant this as a joke, but I reckon it could be more true than I realise.

Which is why it’s taken them >50 years after WW2 to get to something approximating universal healthcare whereas we did it in 5. They only have effective* government for 2 out of every 8 years. Which means that only 2 in 16 years are on your side.

Which is why I'm not an advocate of the U.S. system. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

The theory of separation of powers in a U.S. style presidential system is nice, but presidential systems cause huge problems. I think that Westminster style parliamentary systems (with some type of proportional representation electoral system) are much more effective in practice.

Just let whoever wins Strictly be head of state for the year. Their one job would be to either rubber stamp or veto legislation, based on a text voting system where every vote gets entered into a prize draw

Cool lets bring back capital punishment.

Don't be ludicrous.

In some cases, mostly backward countries which have absolute monarchies themeselves, but it isnt clear overall outside the whining of the royalists that this is true.

Which backward countries are you referring to?

In any case, who would you prefer to send as a diplomatic head of state instead of the new king / previous queen? Sunak? Johnson? May?

Yeah France etc does so badly.

Different countries are different. Who'd have thought it.

AH yes the schrodingers monarchy. Sadly though despite the well proven evidence of their interference in democracy you have to be pretty dumb to even begin to dream they would interfere in the countries as opposed to their own interests.

What do you suppose has been happening in parliament for the last decade or so?

In the USA their head of state is also the executive. This causes problems, because as well as being a political actor, the president is also the leader of the country in apolitial matters. People often feel the need to get behind the president even if they don't like his politics. That's why being a US president is a much bigger deal than being PM, and the governing party can boot out the PM if they are embarassing themselves. There's no way Trump would have served 5 years if he'd been a UK PM.

I think it's a great idea to have someone non-political to represent and symbolise the country and its leadership, whilst not actually doing anything. I'm not sure we need to spent a shit-ton of money on it though and I've no attachment to the hereditary monarchy.. Although I appreciate a lot of the money 'spent' on royals is not actually spent, as such. But that's another discussion.

Unlike other countries we have over-developed our ideas on ‘Class’

True. But,

and part of keeping the great unwashed in line is maintaining that stratification by giving people a means to vent, or tug their forelock in patriotic supplication.

and

Generally they just squeal its true and expect everyone else to doff their caps.

Where do you get this supplication and cap-doffing from? Are you here from the 1800s? The people who are into this stuff haven't just come up from t'pit where they know their place, mostly they seem to want to wave a little flag and drink Pimms. The only caps I saw on telly were crappy union jack bowler-style plastic hats.

Also,

"Why do we need a head of state?" and "why do we need a monarch" are two different questions.

Unlike other countries we have over-developed our ideas on ‘Class’

Yes, not like the world's most populous democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

i suppose it’s better than Russia where you have Putin who’s head of carnage and corruption

There was that 3 million euros Charles received from a senior Qatari politician. The money was in a suitcase, a holdall and some fortnum and mason carrier bags.

Im sure though that was completely above board, after all, thats normally how billionaires pass money around.

In any case, who would you prefer to send as a diplomatic head of state instead of the new king / previous queen? Sunak? Johnson? May?

Don't we send both/either PM and monarch to meet other HoSs at the moment, depending on the occasion?

I don't know (or particularly care). That being the case though, having more than one representative seems handy.

There was that 3 million euros Charles received from a senior Qatari politician. The money was in a suitcase, a holdall and some fortnum and mason carrier bags.

Im sure though that was completely above board, after all, thats normally how billionaires pass money around.

What do you suppose €3M is to billionaires? That's like me buying a pint. Thanks for the three mil mate, stick it in the corner with the others.

Charlie boy is seemingly worth about £2billion and the royal family as a whole is chasing about 100bn as far as I can tell. He's impoverished compared to some, the Saudi royals run into the trillions.

... also, there may be a cultural thing going on there. When I was selling my house I had several (stupidly low) offers from Asian blokes who wanted to pay in literal cash.

We don't. It's just somewhere on a spectrum between absolute dictatorship and absolute chaos.

Thinking about this again. Actually Liz and now Chaz give a pretty good case for how much a Head of State is unnecessary. Not for the presence/impact they have here (after all, they open parliaments, visit the odd hospital etc on a regular basis and meet the PM weekly) but how they perform their duties in the other 13 nations they are head of state in also.

Take Australia for example - their last head of state deigned to spend time on their soil 16 times - 1954, 1963, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2002, 2006 and 2011. Which is pretty damned impressive considering how far away is it. But that still amounts to 70 odd days in the country all up - in 70 years.....so roughly one day in every 360. Before 1954 The Australians had never actually had their head of state step foot on their shores and in the last 12 years since her last visit they seem to be doing just fine.

So I guess what I'm saying is if you can get by for 12 years without your head of state swinging by, it's a pretty safe bet you don't really need one.

Tradition.

International relations.

Tourism.

For all that royal ‘power’ has largely been lip service for years despite squeals about “meddling,” I still quite like the idea of having a hail mary contingency plan given the route our current government is heading. I yearn for the day that Charlie tells Rishi Rich to get ****ed.

Let us know when you get back to planet earth.

then declared that he would not sign into law any legislation that he disagreed with.

This is a silly argument. Obviously any reshuffling from our current semi-written constitution with the Sovereign as HoS to an elected or appointed HoS would be accompanied by statute defining and limiting their powers. Obviously.

Is it only British people you think can't be trusted to elect a ceremonial head of state or all people? The Irish seem to be doing an okay job of it.

However, I would settle for the winner of Strictly or the Eurovision nominee.

Take Australia for example – their last head of state deigned to spend time on their soil 16 times 

Australia, Canada etc have federal and state Governors-General who fulfil all of those roles on behalf of the actual Head of State. They are, basically, the ceremonial heads of state. So actually Australia is a bad example of a country without a Head of State, and a good example of an appointed Head of State...

...although it did go badly in 1977...

Cool lets bring back capital punishment.

Don’t be ludicrous.

To be fair you started it:

Cougar Full Member

Tradition.

There might well be some good arguments why we should have a head of state but "tradition" isn't one of them.

.

“Why do we need a head of state?” and “why do we need a monarch” are two different questions.

Definitely. But the thread's title makes it pretty clear which question is being asked.

Definitely. But the thread’s title makes it pretty clear which question is being asked.

You'd best take that up with all the people who are answering the other one, then.

Don’t be ludicrous.

Well it was traditional up until the 60s. So why shouldnt we keep it? Unless you want to come up with a better argument than "traditional".

Which backward countries are you referring to?

Those absolute monarchies who tend to like their fellow monarchs. Do you really think most other presidents and so forth are really impressed by someone who got a job just by being born? These are people who have earned their roles leading the countries.

In any case, who would you prefer to send as a diplomatic head of state instead of the new king / previous queen? Sunak? Johnson? May?

All would be preferable than sending Andrew as a trade envoy. This argument is always confusing since we still send the actual PM to do anything important. So do you really feel the other heads of states think "well mays is a muppet but thank god for charlie?"

Different countries are different. Who’d have thought it.

Sadly that doesnt really work as a response. Are you sure they are different in terms of tourism. Just look at the tourism numbers for the royal palaces. A lack of royal presence doesnt hurt them and whilst Buckingham palace is a bit crap Windsor could be a far better tourist attraction.

What do you suppose has been happening in parliament for the last decade or so?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here beyond being your normal superior self. Aside from the obvious we know the royals got laws altered to suit their personal interests but did **** all to protect the country.

I like dissonance. But the flag wavers don't like it when you bring up the dark side of the Royals. So be prepared for the incoming attacks.

Lets not be too harsh on the Royals at this difficult time though, they'll be in mourning over Rolf Harris.

King Charles crowned...and then a short time later Rolf Harris dies. It makes you think.

Rome did alright before a crazed general took over.

Buckingham palace is a bit crap

Nothing compares to the Royal Yacht Britannia. The 'staterooms' in that wouldn't have looked out of place in a cheap 1970's motel.

Its good to have a HoS who doesn't have a real job who can spend their time attending pointless ceremonies and wander around the globe shaking hands with people and attending functions whilst the PM gets on with actually running the Govenrment of the country.

jhinwxm
Free Member
I like dissonance. But the flag wavers don’t like it when you bring up the dark side of the Royals. So be prepared for the incoming attacks.

According to you "the dark side of the royals" includes Charlie choosing Camilla instead of Diana, you weirdly claimed that Charlie has "questions to answer".

Although you never did explain what these questions were when I asked you.

jhinwxm
Free Member

Imagine choosing Camilla over Diana? That need serious questions asking for starters.

Posted 6 days ago

Can you explain why you are bothered who Charlie Windsor ended up with and what serious questions need answering?

Well it was traditional up until the 60s. So why shouldnt we keep it? Unless you want to come up with a better argument than “traditional”.

The OP's question was "why." It's a reason. It might be a crap reason, but it's a reason.

Those absolute monarchies who tend to like their fellow monarchs.

Right.

At the risk of repeating myself, which countries are you referring to?

All would be preferable than sending Andrew as a trade envoy.

A role he hasn't played for over a decade. (And I think I'd probably still send Andrew ahead of his late dad or Boris.)

This argument is always confusing since we still send the actual PM to do anything important. So do you really feel the other heads of states think “well mays is a muppet but thank god for charlie?”

Your guess is as good as mine. Well, possibly. But the Queen was symbolic, I expect most "heads of state" on diplomatic missions to have their photo taken with other heads of state are similar.

whilst the PM gets on with actually running the Govenrment of the country.

Sadly our PMs dont always get the message. See Johnsons cosplay habit and Sunak isnt adverse to it either. A lot of his need to use helicopters seem based around him doing photo ops.

jhinwxm
Free Member
I like dissonance.

Well, you've got a confidence vote there.

Remember when I said a while back, if someone ever need a moral steer then just look who you're getting in bed with?

Imagine choosing Camilla over Diana?

Well, one is currently significantly warmer than the other.

Imagine choosing Camilla over Diana?

Well, one is currently significantly warmer than the other.

#muttleys****

England was a republic with no monarch as head of state for 11 years between 1649 and 1660 after King Charles I was executed. King Charles II was made monarch after it'd all gone to shit.

I think the historical argument for having the monarch as head of state was that republics were considered to be inherently unstable, either ending up run by a tyrant or collapsing into anarchy. Having some sort of semi- benign head of state who was above the day to politics was considered to have some sort of benefit. Whether that still makes sense in 2023 I'm not sure but I can sort of see how it makes sense.

I think having absolutely no head of state at all is impossible - the role will get filled but you definitely don't one person running all the branches of the state.

I think having absolutely no head of state at all is impossible – the role will get filled but you definitely don’t one person running all the branches of the state.

When was the last time the head of state here interviened, it's either never or every week in meetings with the pm depending on who you listen to

England was a republic with no monarch as head of state for 11 years between 1649 and 1660 after King Charles I was executed. King Charles II was made monarch after it’d all gone to shit.

I think the historical argument for having the monarch as head of state was that republics were considered to be inherently unstable, either ending up run by a tyrant or collapsing into anarchy. Having some sort of semi- benign head of state who was above the day to politics was considered to have some sort of benefit.

When was the last time the head of state here interviened, it’s either never or every week in meetings with the pm depending on who you listen to

The role doesn't have to have executive power to be important - it's the difference between Liz Truss having to swear an oath to the Queen and us having to swear an oath to Liz Truss. Yes it's symbolic but it is important. Definitely far from perfect. I think I'd definitely prefer a well functioning republic, but the risk is you end up with an extremely divisive "political" head of state (US today) or you end up with a weak and ineffectual president (e.g. Weimar republic).

The comparisons with the US system don't really stack up:

USA
President - directed elected by populace
Cabinet positions - Chosen by President, and confirmed in a senate hearing
Congress - Directly elected
Senate - Directly elected

UK
Monarch - Hereditry position
PM - Chosen by party in power, and can be changed by that party.
Cabinet - Appointed by PM
House of Commonons - Elected
House of Lords - Hereditry or awarded.

To call our system democratic falls a bit thin.

I've never seen the need for a head of state myself.

Just to be clear, before this gets diverted into “why do we need the Monarchy?”, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking why we need a Head of State as well as a PM?

Simple answer to a simple question, we don't.

And yet we have one. I don't think the UK does sudden, major change very well (I shall not envoke the B word) so I can't see us changing the situation any time soon...

I’ve never seen the need for a head of state myself.

I think the Irish model works perfectly fine - having some likeable punter wander around opening primary schools, meeting dignitaries at the airport, and Tweeting congratulations for winning flower shows is a nice enough thing. https://twitter.com/PresidentIRL

The idea it needs to be a job for life and inherited from your dad to avoid literally Hitler is just nuts though.

Floella Benjamin for President!

USA
President – directed elected by populace

That's not correct. In 2000 and 2016, the less popular candidate was elected, and it was a fairly rubbish outcome: Bush and Trump.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

England was a republic with no monarch as head of state for 11 years between 1649 and 1660 after King Charles I was executed.

Yes after he, due to his belief in being chosen by god, plunged us into the war of the three kingdoms after trying to tell the Scots how to pray and after they invited him to go whistle annoying the English by demanding money so he could attack the Scots.
Even then parliament on the whole would have preferred to have kept him with more limited powers. Problem was his belief in the divine right of kings meant he couldnt accept that and after provoking parliament once too often lost his head.
A few decades later it was almost repeated but stopped by the Dutch invasion (mostly anyway). Which given William wasnt overly interested in the UK meant parliament was left to its own devices.

I think the historical argument for having the monarch as head of state was that republics were considered to be inherently unstable, either ending up run by a tyrant or collapsing into anarchy.

A rather weak one unless you go for a constitutional monarchy and even then its questionable whether if the politicians do go rogue whether they could stop them.
Otherwise especially with hereditary (as opposed to elected) monarchies every new generation is a roll of the dice which may well end up with war as a cursory look through European history shows.

The idea it needs to be a job for life and inherited from your dad to avoid literally Hitler is just nuts though.

Charlie Windsor inherited his job from his mum and Adolf Hitler won an election, apart from that good point 👍

Edit: And Hitler only ever received a minority of the votes cast in elections, so if you don't support PR you are as bad as the Nazis, probably.

Why do we need nation states?

A lot of the answers about governability etc died with improved technology and communications. We're let with the same old war-mongering nationalistic crap without any real pros apart from the Eurovision Song Contest.

Why do we need nation states?

Because we haven't evolved sufficiently

Because we haven’t evolved sufficiently

To do what? You could argue that the reason we haven't 'evolved sufficiently' is because of the anachronistic existence of nation states. Circular argument I know. Just imagine if someone had created a federation, say, of European states that we could be part of? Inconceivable I know.

Wouldn't a federation of European states totally defeat the object?

Edit: Btw the federal United States of America has a head of state.

Wouldn’t a federation of European states totally defeat the object?

Not necessarily, it would potentially be part of a gradual evolution away from nation states. Note the 'potentially'. How else do you evolve? It's unlikely that there's ever going to be a grand abolition of statehood, more likely is gradual creep towards larger confederations and cooperation. I don't see how else it happens.

In a similar way to the manner that England was a bunch of disparate kingdoms - Mercia, Wessex etc - or Italy or Germany. It's a slow ongoing process enabled by communications and technology - and power I guess - that makes it feasible to coherently run an area larger than a small estate. Or something like that.

What could the alternatives be?

Ah you want smaller nation states replaced with bigger nation states.

That's not the way forward for me. Democracy and autonomous self-government, plus an end to class antagonism and all forms of tribalism is.

Definitely no place for a head of state under those circumstances.

Ah you want smaller nation states replaced with bigger nation states.

That’s not the way forward for me. Democracy and autonomous self-government, plus an end to class antagonism and all forms of tribalism is.

Definitely no place for a head of state under those circumstances.

Wouldn't you want that for everyone in the world and without nation states and nationalism? Isn't nationalism, perpetuated by the existence of nation states, one of the worst and most destructive forms of tribalism, not least because it potentially transcends other tribal divisions - which is why it's so dangerous?

It's all very well saying you want all those things and dismissing any practical interim steps in the mean time, but how do you evolve away from nation states without workign with other nation states to achieve that?

Why do we need nation states?

What we have is an international system that has evolved out of kingdoms that were established through war. From a purely logical point of view, there are many undesirable things about the current system, but trying to abolish nation states and set up some utopian world order would just result in enormous bloodshed, which would be far worse than what we have. All the democracies have problems, but they are still far better places to live than the non-democracies.

So it's not a matter of needing nation states, it's a matter of the current system being better than the realistic alternatives. Which, obviously, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the current system, but abolishing based on a utopian dream is a non-starter.

Which, obviously, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to improve the current system, but abolishing based on a utopian dream is a non-starter.

Which is why I'm wondering if a trend towards larger confederations of states is a more realistic pathway towards the diminished influence of nation states, which is historically what's happened in, say, Germany or Italy - though I guess the Soviet Union is/was the opposite. I'm not suggesting you can simply abolish nation states, but they do seem responsible for a lot of bad shit in the world.

And of course they have a complex relationship with nationalism, which is a really unpleasant, corrosive force in many instances. Obviously they're not the same thing, but I'm not sure nation states based on ethnicity are a good thing. Or, for that matter, nation states which override ethnicity and unite people by facing outwards aggressively.

I hope that in the extreme long term, if we manage not to destroy ourselves first, we move away from both nationalism and nation states, but I'm not saying you can do that instantly, there has to be a process no? Getting rid of the Head of State might be a good start?

The UK isn't a nation state. In Italy and Germany, the state came first and the nation was invented after.

the nation was invented after.

All nations are basically an invention.

Why do we need nation states?

Because

1) it's important to people

2) different countries have different world views

3) who would govern?

On 1) there was a multi-page shitstorm of a thread on STW a couple of weeks back over the renaming of a national park. Folk in Wales want to keep Welsh alive for no practical reason other than cultural. It's not required for communication, having different languages in the world makes it more difficult to talk to each other in fact, but it's essential to their identity and heritage.

Meanwhile, over in France French is legally protected. I was in a supermarket over there one time, some bloke came over and started barrelling something at me in French. I have a smattering of GCSE French but it was so fast and unexpected that I didn't get a word of it. I panicked and said something like "sorry mate, I don't understand," he threw his head back with a sniff (yes really), retorted "en France!" and marched off. Well, I'm terribly sorry that I haven't become fluent yet in the two days I've been here.

On 2) how can that possibly align? Can you imagine say the untied kingdoms of Canada and China? Or Russia and, well, anyone?

On 3) we had brexit at least in part because people didn't want to be ruled by those pesky bureaucrats in Brussels.

That's certainly the traditional Andersonian position, and it's very plausible to me esp. when you consider the Scots or Croats or whatever. It's just interesting that arguably it's mostly a case of nations wrapping a state around themselves, in Germany and Italy the state needed to create a nation for itself!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagined_Communities

(united, not untied. Blast.)

when you consider the Scots or Croats or whatever.

That'd make for an interesting name if they merged.

on a more practical level - remember when JRM and Bozo got parliament closed to avoid scrutiny of the brexit deal ? Prorogue is the term they used.

They went to queen Brenda to ask permission, knowing full well she wouldn't say no even though she should have - and it took a judge to get them to reopen parliament.

the Head of state should be doing that job properly. A properly functioning head of state should be backing up the speaker of the HoC to make them answer questions properly, get rid of those who break the rules - actually having working rules not 'code' that allows ludicrous stuff like braverman trying to dodge points on her licence or all the other stuff - and forcing a GE instead of one useless PM handing over to another like Johnson followed by Truss followed by Sunak