On A British Presidency: Joanna Lumley

I'm torn on the idea of Britain having a President. Whilst I am no fan of having the monarchy as Head of State, I've yet to be sold on the idea of having a President in that position. 

Of course, all the arguments for and against are hashed and rehashed time and time again, and I'm not going to rehearse them here. But I'd like to put an end to one objection to Britain having a President right here, right now. And that is the "dangers" of having a President who might also be a celebrity. 

The argument goes like this. On the one hand, we are pretty much guaranteed King Charles under the current state of affairs. On the other hand, if there were open elections to become Head of State, then we might end up with a highly identifiable celebrity instead of King Charles. Just imagine it! President David Beckham!

Of course, you could argue that David Beckham - a talented man who took the money made from that talent and turned himself into a multi-millionaire - is a far better choice for Prime Minister than a born rich, eco-loon mummy's boy like Prince Charles. Personally, I wouldn't want either one to be our Head of State. But here's the thing - if we did have a President, I don't think Beckham would run. And I certainly don't think he would be elected. 

There is, of course, a possibility that a celebrity would end up President. However, it would have to be a canny, politically aware celebrity. Someone capable of winning the trust of a major party, and then fighting a disciplined, targeted campaign. And - crucially - it would also have to be someone who gives a fuck about politics. Right there is where you would lose the likes of David Beckham and, perhaps, even Charles Windsor. Instead, you would get credible contenders to be President who might not be coming from the corrupt, self-perpetuating oligarchy that is the ruling elite in the House of Commons. Which could be no bad thing. 

See, much has been made of Ronald Reagan's pre-political career of being a Hollywood Actor. Of course, the reality is that Ronald Reagan was a B-movie actor who never made it big. But from his days as an actor, he could communicate well. Very well. And he also proved to be a sage political operator long before he first sought the Presidency. He was a canny political personality, which is why he was arguably the most successful President of the modern era and certainly since FDR ruled America for over a decade. 

A British equivalent to Ronald Reagan would be similar - someone who had been a celebrity, learned how to communicate and had shown they had political ability. It wouldn't be David Beckham; it would be more likely to be someone such as Joanna Lumley. 

Think about it - President Lumley. An eloquent advocate for her chosen political cause. An instantly identifiable figure in this country and, arguably, abroad. And someone who managed to run rings around Gordon Brown with an ease that sometimes eludes David Cameron, and constantly eludes Nick Clegg. 

It is unlikely to happen - and is certainly premature to talk about candidates for a British Presidency when such a Presidency is neither in existence or even on the agenda. But all this goes to show is that a celebrity President is not necessarily something to fear. It is unlikely that you will end up with a Head of State worse than Prince Charles, and there is every likelihood that a celebrity President might be much better...