So who want's us to have a President?

[Michael Rolls]

exactly

[Cassandra]

I'd say two likely reasons.
- A preponderance of 'his countrymen' living in Londonistan.
- The facility for such people to control and collect the votes of others of their own kind, who either cannot read or are under the Imam's thumb.

Absolutely and London's fate today will be the future of the UK's tomorrow. In 50 years time Shariah law will legislate this countries legal system, unless the Indians (Hindu's) win the takeover instead.

[JBR]

Absolutely and London's fate today will be the future of the UK's tomorrow. In 50 years time Shariah law will legislate this countries legal system, unless the Indians (Hindu's) win the takeover instead.

No.  The Hindus (and Sikhs) are heavily outnumbered by them.

[Diasi]

Why on earth do people bang on about the UK needing a President.

We just call the PM President, which he / she actually is, in all but name, so job done.

[klondike]

So you're in favour of having President Rishi as head of state then? Soon to be followed by President Kier?

The problem with having a PM as head of state is that usually over half the population detest them. I suspect fewer detest Charlie than detest Rishi.