Should the UK have an elected president instead of a monarch?

I'm not sure the UK could be trusted to pick a decent President if election trends over the last few years are anything to go by! Remember "I voted for Boris cos he's funny?" Since it would only be a titular role, with our parliamentary system, can you imagine the list of likely, unsuitsable candidates? And Brits would probably choose the most unsuitable, who would then move into the Place & live the high life! A tongue in cheek view from me! But be careful what you wish for!

GaryWooldridge· 158

The Hard-Border Constitutional Conservative

Voted noRight lean

I am not a monarchist but don't see a presidency as a better solution. A surefire why to hit political stalemate.

The monarchy and the active role it plays in active life would be much missed. Do we really want to become a republic and hold votes for a President who can lie to us. President would be more than a figurehead role. And add another layer of governance at a time when most want to reduce the administrative burdens

FrancoisLoi· 62

The Taxpayer’s Steward

Voted noC. Right lean

The Royal family have not performed their constitutional duties since before Queen Elizabeth 2nd, and many if the contact leaves much to be desired. However, imagine President Blair, Starmer, Good heavens....

PaulWatsonJnr· 281

The Firestarter

Voted noRight lean

We should have a separate PM of the UK. Unfortunately for that to happen we need England to have it's own Leader like the other three nations. That means we could have a Labour PM of the UK but all the countries have different parties in power. Each country can make it's own laws etc

ZittyRRRs· 87

The Public-Control Socialist

Voted noLeft lean

The only real argument against our King is financial. But a President wouldn't save any money as opposed to our Monarch. They would still want the big house etc. Our King has been trained for the role for a lifetime. He has worldwide respect as a Head of State. Unlike any politician who would would want the role who would be untrained and likely corrupt He is the Head of the Armed forces and so we can't have any Trump like abuse of the army. Any change would be for the worse

BunstanceBunnidge· 232

The Democratic Egalitarian

Voted yesH. Left lean

Our royals are an embarrassing, corrupt, expensive, archaic stain on our democracy. It's time to become a proper modern parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary republics like Ireland and Finland have non-executive presidents with a strictly constitutional and ceremonial role. They elect unifying, non-divisive figures who retain high levels of public esteem.

God no. Who would have swapped QEII for any politician? President Blair or President Starmer anyone? Constitutional monarchy is a remarkably stable system of Govt around the World. These states often have less Govt corruption as well. The important point is the power denied to politicians. Its not like a presidency where one person has all the say. The PM can be enormously powerful and popular, but will still have a BOSS to answer to .. and THAT is the important point

Our royal family bring so much into this country.

Seneca· 262

The Unifier

Voted noRight lean

The monarchy is almost entirely symbolic in its current form. Replacing it with a president would muddy the waters as such a president could claim a mandate to push for more power