“President Blair” is up there with some of the more daft arguments from monarchists. Firstly Blair has already done ten years as PM, a position far more powerful in terms of domestic politics than a US president. The alternative to the monarchy is not a US style constitution.
It’s a parliamentary republic in which political power is shared between government and parliament, with a limited constitutional role for the president.
Blair and the other ex-prime ministers who get mentioned are ex for a reason. It’s highly unlikely they get elected or even stand. However, if they did stand and were popular enough to win then it’s absolutely right that they get in.
When monarchists say “who would you get? President Blair?” the answer is obvious: you get the person the voters choose.
Look at some of the elected heads of state we’ve tweeted about this week. In each case the voters or their representatives get to decide who has the the right qualities and character to be head of state.
In the UK who the head of state will be is fixed by the random chance of births, deaths and marriages. So instead people insist the monarch has the right qualities and character regardless of the evidence.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
