[Acrylic-bob]

Speaking personally, I would prefer to retain the monarchy. There are many who deride members the Royal Family and criticise them for displaying character flaws common to us all. It strikes me that in having to bear the indignities of a lothario for a husband and the failed marriages of three of her children, HM actually provides quite an accurate mirror of a dysfunctional nation.

Every nation needs a figure head, whether this is an elected Head of State or, as in the case of Britain, an heriditary monarchy, the end result is more or less the same. We would have a person who commands respect and deference due, in prime, to their position and occaisionally to their personality.

The position of Head of State must inevitably be an expensive one to maintain. Such a person cannot help but have a family, who would, equally inevitably, benefit by association.

In the last presidential election in the United States a figure well in excess of 1 billion dollars was expended by the two main political parties in the attempt to get their candidate elected. Forty million dollars was spent on a ten minute ceremony to swear him in to office. Do we really want to see similar sums spent here every five years, in addition to what is required to maintain the head of state once elected and in addition to what is spent to elect a new parliament?

Given the current public disenchantment with politicians of all flavours and the consequent disinterest in politics in general - who among you can name the current Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs or knows what position in government Jack Straw occupies? - can anyone seriously claim that a constantly changing Head of State would be an improvement on the current system? In the person of the monarch, no matter what you might think of her relatives, we have enjoyed over fifty years of stability at the very highest level of government.

Think about that. And then think about the examples of other republics. Think about France and the scandals which surrounded De Gaulle, Giscard d'Estaing, Mitterand and Pompidou when they were in office, and worse, once they had left office! Think about Austria, which elected the former Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldhiem. Think about any country in Africa or the third world who are unable to elect anyone, to any position, without astonishing loss of life!
And then think about the good ol' US of A. Ronald Reagan, who for most of his second term in office wasn't really certain where he was. Or Bill Clinton, the serial philanderer. Or the two George Bush's, who regard the presidency as a license to print money. Or Richard M. Nixon, who's aqaintance with the truth was strained to say the least.

And then think about The Queen, she has been in the job for fifty years and not one breath of scandal has attached itself to her personally. She has managed for all that time to walk the fine line of honourable conduct and devotion to duty, without complaint and almost without putting so much as one foot wrong.

And anti-monarchists advocate an elected head of state...
Would President Blair and first lady Cherie really be an ornament to the country? A President who lies to parliament and has neither the grace nor humility to admit it and apologise when he is found out, but instead fully expects the country to return him to office for another five years. And a First Lady whose appetite for inappropriate friendships and dodgy property speculations appears unbounded, and whose eldest son, despite being under the legal age limit, was found face down in Leicester Square - Dead Drunk! Or maybe you would prefer President Straw, who's son was apprehended dealing drugs? Or perhaps President Blunket? He would certainly get the sympathy vote, being blind, but he certainly would not win any medals in the sexual continency contest, and could you really say with your hand on your heart that you were voting for him and not for his dog!.