I disagree of course. We the people are not sovereign. It is the crown in parliament that is sovereign, the monarch who gives power to the Prime Minister. We get to elect an MP once every five years who is then controlled by the party leader via the whips. Therefore in my view all we end up with is an elected dictatorship with the Prime Minister wielding enormous power.
The Queen is completely ineffectual as Head of State because she cannot intervene on the people's behalf due the fact that she has no democratic mandate and her doing so would provoke a constitutional crisis and possibly the end of The Monarchy.
I am in favour, of course, of a written republican constitution and an elected Head of State who would be chosen from amongst us 61,000,000 people. With a republican constitution we could enshrine personal rights to equality, privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of association. We could guarantee habeas corpus and trial by jury. We could guarantee the people’s right to a referendum on any international treaty. The people's rights may already be protected by UK law, but with power coming from the Crown this can be undone on the whim of a PM. Any rights we currently enjoy are upheld merely by convention and habit.

So you want to destroying hundreds upon hundreds of years of tradition for one flawed system to replace it with another less flexible flawed system...

Your argument is not against our system. Your argument is just that powers should be removed from the PM. Roll back the state to a time when the PM had not all these powers...

I don't agree that hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition should be preserved at the expense of forwarding true democratic reform. I also disagree that a republican system of government would be as flawed as the one we are encumbered with now.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

I don't agree that hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition should be preserved at the expense of forwarding true democratic reform. I also disagree that a republican system of government would be as flawed as the one we are encumbered with now.

Evidently we disagree.
But I am one of the minority who are adamant in the view that the House of Lords should remain ENTIRELY unelected.

Then I cannot see us ever agreeing. However I would be interested to know why you are adamant in your belief that the Lords should remain entirely unelected. Personally I would favour a fully elected second chamber with fewer members perhaps, and elected for lengthy fixed terms, perhaps 10 years, but not elected all together (perhaps in quarters) so that the elections would be staggered and each one would produce a snapshot of what the electorate's wish was. We could have unelected experts invited in to help at the committee stages but they would not be full-time members of the legislature.
Government Ministers ought not to be able to sit in the second chamber so as to keep both houses powers separate, and there would be no room for Bishops or any other religious figures unless of course they were elected. After completion of their fixed term, legislatures from the second chamber would then be barred from standing for the Commons for a while.
I expect you will disagree but never mind we had a bit of a debate if nothing else.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

Then I cannot see us ever agreeing. However I would be interested to know why you are adamant in your belief that the Lords should remain entirely unelected. Personally I would favour a fully elected second chamber with fewer members perhaps, and elected for lengthy fixed terms, perhaps 10 years, but not elected all together (perhaps in quarters) so that the elections would be staggered and each one would produce a snapshot of what the electorate's wish was. We could have unelected experts invited in to help at the committee stages but they would not be full-time members of the legislature.
Government Ministers ought not to be able to sit in the second chamber so as to keep both houses powers separate, and there would be no room for Bishops or any other religious figures unless of course they were elected. After completion of their fixed term, legislatures from the second chamber would then be barred from standing for the Commons for a while.
I expect you will disagree but never mind we had a bit of a debate if nothing else.

I completely disagree

If you have an elected second chamber a few things happen.
1. They will demand equal footing as they were both elected by the people
2. The House of Lords will be filled with politicians rather than academics, bishops, arch bishops, Judges, Doctors, Investors, Bankers.
3. We lose hundreds upon hundreds of years of tradition
4. We open up another chamber to the whips system - Currently, due to the nature of the House of Lords, the whips system is ineffective.
5. Lose the independence of the Lords generally.
6. Lose the cost effectiveness of the Lords
7. Risk the social diversity of the Lords

I have no problem with members of the Lords being part of the Government. Even if Mandy is a tosser. Currently, a Lord cannot hold the positions of Prime Minister or Chancellor. [Which is why they are bringing in the ability for Lords to resign. So that Mandy can become an MP again]

As the Anglican Church is the Established Church of England, I see no problem with the churches representation in Parliament.

The only thing I would change is:
1. Have a system to remove Lords who breach the law or confidentiality.
2. Return the Law Lords back to the House of Lords* and give them voting rights
3. Completely remove hereditary peers.
4. Remove any automated peerage that comes with being a Prime Minister or Speaker of the House.
5. Ensure admittance to the Lords is based ONLY on merit. No appointing people like Mandy or Lord Ahmed for personal or PC reasons.
6. Remove the Prime Minister's ability to appoint Lords
7. Prevent the Parliament Acts being used for bills relating to the transfer of power from Westminster.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

2. The House of Lords will be filled with politicians rather than academics, bishops, arch bishops, Judges, Doctors, Investors, Bankers.

Let's be fair. Only two, or maybe three, of the groups listed above benefit the UK in any way, shape or form.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

As the Anglican Church is the Established Church of England, I see no problem with the churches representation in Parliament.

Except that it perpetuates theocracy? Religion is a BAD thing in government. Always. It's bigoted and outdated and has no place in modern politics.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Let's be fair. Only two, or maybe three, of the groups listed above benefit the UK in any way, shape or form.

Bankers, Investors, Academics, Judges, Doctors all have expert knowledge. The Bankers and Investors have expert knowledge in regards to Business and Finance.

Academics have expert knowledge in regards to Educational Policy.

Judges have expert knowledge in regards to Law, Crime and Justice.

Doctors have expert knowledge for the NHS/Medical legislation.

Except that it perpetuates theocracy? Religion is a BAD thing in government. Always. It's bigoted and outdated and has no place in modern politics.

Naturally I disagree.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

The Bankers and Investors have expert knowledge in regards to Business and Finance.

Read: living like parasites off other people's money.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Naturally I disagree.

Yes, well. 'The tory party at prayer' has always opposed change and progress so naturally I would expect your support of them

Originally Posted by DougieG

Read: living like parasites off other people's money.



Yes, well. 'The tory party at prayer' has always opposed change and progress so naturally I would expect your support of them

Bankers and investors don't get money from others money in the first place. They must work for it. They then invest their money wisely.

Why do you insult them just because they wisely invested their money?
Surely it just shows others are not clever with their money.




I don't oppose all change

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Bankers and investors don't get money from others money in the first place. They must work for it. They then invest their money wisely.

Why do you insult them just because they wisely invested their money?
Surely it just shows others are not clever with their money.

Most investors simply use other people's money (through the banks), racking up enormous profits then giving a tiny proportion of that to the people whose money they have used. The vast majority have not 'worked hard for their money', rather they have taken a degree in business or economics and used friends and family contacts to get a high paying job investing on behalf of banks. They then proceed to cock up the economy for everyone else - see the current situation.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

I completely disagree

If you have an elected second chamber a few things happen.
1. They will demand equal footing as they were both elected by the people
2. The House of Lords will be filled with politicians rather than academics, bishops, arch bishops, Judges, Doctors, Investors, Bankers.
3. We lose hundreds upon hundreds of years of tradition
4. We open up another chamber to the whips system - Currently, due to the nature of the House of Lords, the whips system is ineffective.
5. Lose the independence of the Lords generally.
6. Lose the cost effectiveness of the Lords
7. Risk the social diversity of the Lords

I have no problem with members of the Lords being part of the Government. Even if Mandy is a tosser. Currently, a Lord cannot hold the positions of Prime Minister or Chancellor. [Which is why they are bringing in the ability for Lords to resign. So that Mandy can become an MP again]

As the Anglican Church is the Established Church of England, I see no problem with the churches representation in Parliament.

The only thing I would change is:
1. Have a system to remove Lords who breach the law or confidentiality.
2. Return the Law Lords back to the House of Lords* and give them voting rights
3. Completely remove hereditary peers.
4. Remove any automated peerage that comes with being a Prime Minister or Speaker of the House.
5. Ensure admittance to the Lords is based ONLY on merit. No appointing people like Mandy or Lord Ahmed for personal or PC reasons.
6. Remove the Prime Minister's ability to appoint Lords
7. Prevent the Parliament Acts being used for bills relating to the transfer of power from Westminster.

I find myself agreeing with a great many of your proposed changes except that you cannot see that an unelected second chamber is undemocratic. To reflect the will of the people our legislature should be elected. Or are you saying there is a class of people who instinctively know best and we should be led by them? If there is, then we must make it worth their while to stand for election. Look at the Lords now, we've got Ahmed and Archer still in there, we've got the cronies of various PMs in there, we've got people in there who have been shunted in there out of the way for causing the PM difficulties. The Lords reputation is nearly as low as the Commons at the moment and there needs to be some radical reform. One thing my republican views will never agree with though is having appointees in our legislatures unless they are co-opted for a specific purpose at the committee stages.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Most investors simply use other people's money (through the banks), racking up enormous profits then giving a tiny proportion of that to the people whose money they have used. The vast majority have not 'worked hard for their money', rather they have taken a degree in business or economics and used friends and family contacts to get a high paying job investing on behalf of banks. They then proceed to cock up the economy for everyone else - see the current situation.

Are you seriously saying that if you had both the knowledge and the opportunity to borrow and reinvest, making yourself a very considerable profit along the way, you'd walk away from the deal saying "it's unfair on those people whose money I'm borrowing"??? Like many younger people without any real world experience, you've been seduced by the socialist line of 'fairness' and 'equitability' without yet having realised that people are not equal nor is the world fair, or indeed that socialism just does not work.

As regards 'cocking up the economy', don't forget how the whole financial rot set in, way back in the US with the Carter administration and their attempts at 'fairness' in permitting banks and other lending institutions to provide mortgages to predominantly black people who otherwise wouldn't qualify because of their low earnings and poor credit history. Since that time, with just one or two high profile fraud cases excepted (and fraud happens under any administration and involves people from all sides of the political spectrum) the banks have been operating within the guidelines set by the government, certainly so in the UK.

If there's any blame to be laid, the majority of it's down to lack of effective regulation and oversight; the banks simply took the opportunities which preceding government legislation had allowed then to do. No-one knew how it would turn out because it was a totally new scenario all round, however in retrospect at least, someone in the government must have realised the folly of lending to people way beyond their means. Look to the system which allowed this to happen, i.e., socialism, not to the banks themselves for simply taking advantage of what was handed to them on a plate.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

I find myself agreeing with a great many of your proposed changes except that you cannot see that an unelected second chamber is undemocratic. To reflect the will of the people our legislature should be elected. Or are you saying there is a class of people who instinctively know best and we should be led by them? If there is, then we must make it worth their while to stand for election. Look at the Lords now, we've got Ahmed and Archer still in there, we've got the cronies of various PMs in there, we've got people in there who have been shunted in there out of the way for causing the PM difficulties. The Lords reputation is nearly as low as the Commons at the moment and there needs to be some radical reform. One thing my republican views will never agree with though is having appointees in our legislatures unless they are co-opted for a specific purpose at the committee stages.

We evidently have a different opinion here.
I am quite aware that the House of Lords is directly undemocratic, however, that does not bother me. The main power of Parliament is within the House of Commons [or in my view it should be]. As a result, that is the elected chamber.

The House of Lords was extremely weakened by the Parliament Acts which means overall power still resides with the Commons.

As I have said before, there should be no automated peerages.
Just because you were a Prime Minister or Speaker does not constitute you a position in the House of Lords. The House of Lords Appointments Commission should appoint ALL Lords based on merit.

The Prime Minister should merely review the applications, and like the current Justice Secretary, can only prevent the appointment if there is serious and strong evidence against the individual. I.e. A criminal conviction.

Originally Posted by Midas

Are you seriously saying that if you had both the knowledge and the opportunity to borrow and reinvest, making yourself a very considerable profit along the way, you'd walk away from the deal saying "it's unfair on those people whose money I'm borrowing"??? Like many younger people without any real world experience, you've been seduced by the socialist line of 'fairness' and 'equitability' without yet having realised that people are not equal nor is the world fair, or indeed that socialism just does not work.

I completely agree.
In my view, it is clever to make money "out of nothing".
If I knew I could borrow £5000 off my dad, invest it and make £10,000 I would jump at the opportunity.

Starting March [when my ISA's contract is terminated], I intend to put at least half into investments

As regards 'cocking up the economy', don't forget how the whole financial rot set in, way back in the US with the Carter administration and their attempts at 'fairness' in permitting banks and other lending institutions to provide mortgages to predominantly black people who otherwise wouldn't qualify because of their low earnings and poor credit history. Since that time, with just one or two high profile fraud cases excepted (and fraud happens under any administration and involves people from all sides of the political spectrum) the banks have been operating within the guidelines set by the government, certainly so in the UK.

Careful Midas the "Racist" and "Political Correctness" crew may get you.
However, you are entirely correct.

I know little about the House of Lords Appointments Commission or what criteria they use to select prospective Lords. Although I have said I would prefer an elected second chamber, there are obviously different types of election. My suspicion is that everything is bound up by tradition and though I accept that tradition is important I believe that part of the reason we are in the mess we are currently in is because we have been doggedly clinging to tradition and have ended up stifling the wish of the people. One other thing I would like to see is a sort of citizens' convention to involve a cross-section of the public in a two way conversation with our elected representatives. I do have some reservations about this though, I can see that there might be a danger of reactionary populism which would stifle reflection and contemplation. I think we can agree that some sort of change is needed and I hope it happens in my lifetime. But I'm not holding my breath waiting.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

I know little about the House of Lords Appointments Commission or what criteria they use to select prospective Lords. Although I have said I would prefer an elected second chamber, there are obviously different types of election. My suspicion is that everything is bound up by tradition and though I accept that tradition is important I believe that part of the reason we are in the mess we are currently in is because we have been doggedly clinging to tradition and have ended up stifling the wish of the people. One other thing I would like to see is a sort of citizens' convention to involve a cross-section of the public in a two way conversation with our elected representatives. I do have some reservations about this though, I can see that there might be a danger of reactionary populism which would stifle reflection and contemplation. I think we can agree that some sort of change is needed and I hope it happens in my lifetime. But I'm not holding my breath waiting.

One of the many things Labour have cocked up... Labour have no respected tradition at all. They don't give a crap about tradition.

So for the last 12 or so years, we have not been "doggedly" clinging to tradition, we have been "doggedly" clinging to expensive and ridiculous "modernisation or improved democracy".

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

One of the many things Labour have cocked up... Labour have no respected tradition at all. They don't give a crap about tradition.

So for the last 12 or so years, we have not been "doggedly" clinging to tradition, we have been "doggedly" clinging to expensive and ridiculous "modernisation or improved democracy".

Whereas I think they have been pussyfooting around with half measures, a complete and utter waste of 12 years during which they could have brought about real change. Instead of which we have ended up with broken Britain, broken by New Labour and all the preceding governments. I agree with something I read on another blog where a contributor described our democracy as an 800 year old foetus still waiting to be born. Why are less than 40% of the electorate bothered to turn out to vote? Because the people are disconnected from the politicians. I watched John Bercow in the Lords when he went there after being selected as Speaker. What a ludicrous spectacle that was. If that is the face we are presenting to the world then it's a poor do.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

Whereas I think they have been pussyfooting around with half measures, a complete and utter waste of 12 years during which they could have brought about real change. Instead of which we have ended up with broken Britain, broken by New Labour and all the preceding governments. I agree with something I read on another blog where a contributor described our democracy as an 800 year old foetus still waiting to be born. Why are less than 40% of the electorate bothered to turn out to vote? Because the people are disconnected from the politicians. I watched John Bercow in the Lords when he went there after being selected as Speaker. What a ludicrous spectacle that was. If that is the face we are presenting to the world then it's a poor do.

People are disenchanted with our politicians and political parties not our political system. If the mainstream politicians spoke about the real issues and stopped worrying about political correctness or minority opinion, then I can assure you, voter apathy will quickly reduce.

What is wrong about the ceremony to elect a new speaker? It is merely tradition. It harms no one.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

I watched John Bercow in the Lords when he went there after being selected as Speaker. What a ludicrous spectacle that was. If that is the face we are presenting to the world then it's a poor do.

Yeah its just stupid. We are steeped in tradition for tradition's sake, and this was a prime example. Still, at least he got rid of the tights.

There is nothing wrong with tradition for traditions sake.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

There is nothing wrong with tradition for traditions sake.

LA anything simply for the sake of said anything is a pointless exercise. If they wanted to honour the tradition of the role of speaker, then do it with a bit of gusto. The half-assed empty gesture we saw was just embarassing.

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

LA anything simply for the sake of said anything is a pointless exercise. If they wanted to honour the tradition of the role of speaker, then do it with a bit of gusto. The half-assed empty gesture we saw was just embarassing.

I disagree

Originally Posted by Dr The Evidence

LA anything simply for the sake of said anything is a pointless exercise. If they wanted to honour the tradition of the role of speaker, then do it with a bit of gusto. The half-assed empty gesture we saw was just embarassing.

I tend to agree. All that ridiculous tri-corn-hat doffing and bowing. Why did they need to wear those ridiculous hats anyway? Oh yes, that's it, tradition. Well I was embarrassed and think that sort of thing damages us in the eyes of others. We're supposed to be a modern democracy not Ruritania. Successive governments have failed us, probably because we end up being encumbered at every parliament with a lot of self-serving career politicians who are less interested in advancing democracy and more interested in milking the taxpayer in order to feather their own nests. Don't tell me they aren't, we've just had the expenses scandal. What the complete answer is I do not pretend to know but all I do know is that if we carry on down this same well worn path our society is going to degrade even further with potentially awful consequences. I just hope the public do not eventually turn to extremists to vent their collective spleen.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

I tend to agree. All that ridiculous tri-corn-hat doffing and bowing. Why did they need to wear those ridiculous hats anyway? Oh yes, that's it, tradition. Well I was embarrassed and think that sort of thing damages us in the eyes of others. We're supposed to be a modern democracy not Ruritania. Successive governments have failed us, probably because we end up being encumbered at every parliament with a lot of self-serving career politicians who are less interested in advancing democracy and more interested in milking the taxpayer in order to feather their own nests. Don't tell me they aren't, we've just had the expenses scandal. What the complete answer is I do not pretend to know but all I do know is that if we carry on down this same well worn path our society is going to degrade even further with potentially awful consequences. I just hope the public do not eventually turn to extremists to vent their collective spleen.

Our democratic system is hundreds of years old. It has survived the damages of time. In recent years in has come under threat due to two things.

1. PM power
2. Expenses

Prime Ministerial power at such levels is very recent. Both problems are focused around the ridiculous idea of career politics rather than serving your community. The system is fine. The people are wrong.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Our democratic system is hundreds of years old. It has survived the damages of time. In recent years in has come under threat due to two things.

1. PM power
2. Expenses

Prime Ministerial power at such levels is very recent. Both problems are focused around the ridiculous idea of career politics rather than serving your community. The system is fine. The people are wrong.

Well evidently the system isn't OK, since it is attracting the wrong people...

If we had a proper second chamber with a high age limit, say 35, it would attract far more people who have had more life experience. Furthermore, since it would be elected, these people could actually go on to be party leaders etc. The problem we have is taking all politicians from the commons.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Our democratic system is hundreds of years old. It has survived the damages of time. In recent years in has come under threat due to two things.

1. PM power
2. Expenses

Prime Ministerial power at such levels is very recent. Both problems are focused around the ridiculous idea of career politics rather than serving your community. The system is fine. The people are wrong.

The system is not fine and we have ended up where we are because of that. We do not live in a true democracy, and until we recognize that and take steps to rectify it, the steady decline will continue.We are the victims of continual disinformation from government concerning everything from MPs expenses to the true cost of the Monarchy. If it had not been for the leak which exposed the MPs expenses scandal we would have just got the redacted version from the Parliamentary Authorities instead. So much for transparency. The cost of the Monarchy is often quoted as 69p per capita per year, absolute hogwash. You could excuse anything by dividing its cost by head of population, it's a wonder they haven't tried it with the MPs expenses. When the election that everyone is crying out for finally arrives it will be more of the same after the honeymoon period has passed by. There needs to be proper accountability and we should have a call back system in place to let the people call their representatives to account and not just once every 5 years.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

The system is not fine and we have ended up where we are because of that. We do not live in a true democracy, and until we recognize that and take steps to rectify it, the steady decline will continue.We are the victims of continual disinformation from government concerning everything from MPs expenses to the true cost of the Monarchy. If it had not been for the leak which exposed the MPs expenses scandal we would have just got the redacted version from the Parliamentary Authorities instead. So much for transparency. The cost of the Monarchy is often quoted as 69p per capita per year, absolute hogwash. You could excuse anything by dividing its cost by head of population, it's a wonder they haven't tried it with the MPs expenses. When the election that everyone is crying out for finally arrives it will be more of the same after the honeymoon period has passed by. There needs to be proper accountability and we should have a call back system in place to let the people call their representatives to account and not just once every 5 years.

My inclination is to agree with you on a lot of what you say, in particular that we don't live in a true democracy - what we have is a representational democracy where the ruling party is actually elected by a minority of the electorate - and that we need a great deal more transparency about where government money is going to and how much is spent on bureaucracy.

Where I agree, in part at least, with LA, is it's worthwhile retaining at least some of the tradition that's associated with our parliament and its procedures. Many of these have been handed down through the centuries and are in integral part of our heritage, and whilst I'm a believer in modernisation where it's necessary (and we do need a great deal of it), I also think that it's important to keep a sense of continuity through tradition.

Okay, this is in response to DougieG, ERNESTO and Midas.

The current system in which we operate is acceptable. It may be true to say that we do not operate a true democracy, however, in my view I do not think we need a "true" democracy. Our democratic system is the one that built Britain, defended Britain and claimed the Empire.

My question to you is, do you honestly believe that if we were to replace our system; with an American styled system for example, that we will attract different people?

The fact is we will not. Politics is a powerful game: Thus will always attract those sorts who seek that power. We do not need a new system, rather we need to roll back the state of our democracy, to a time where politicians acted in the interests of their constituency and not their personal gains.

If we were to make the Upper House elected, we would merely create another chamber for those elected politicians. Frankly, I do not want this.

The House of Lords provides fantastic value for money; It is a [nearly] whip-free chamber in which to scrutinise and pressure the Government.

Let's remember that on a couple of occasions, the House of Lords has defeated the Government, and on many more occasions the Government will retreat to avoid defeat.

The House of Lords is a chamber of knowledgeable individuals. In essence, the House of Lords is the meritocracy of Britain. It is from the House of Lords, we get these fantastically detailed reports that can either support or destroy the Governments own "research details/policies".

A clear example of this is immigration. The Government is adamant in that Immigration provides huge benefits to Britain. The House of Lords published a report indicating the fallacious nature of the Governments claim.

One must also look at the composition of the House of Lords in comparison to the House of Commons. The Commons is mainly filled with career politicians; many of which only know politics.

The House of Lords is composed of Academics, Investors, Bankers, Doctors, Surgeons, Bishops, Managers, Directors, Judges... the list just goes on.

Not only this; but for those Euro-fanatics amongst us, the House of Lords also has a committee which overlooks European Union directives, legislation and policy. It examines the contents in detail in context with the British interest.

The fact is, the House of Lords is a magnificent chamber of highly educated individuals. who shall govern us if not the meritocratic intelligentsia of these fair lands?*

If we are to constitute a second elected chamber, not only would we lose the intellectuals that compose the Lords but we would also be faced with a huge escalation in tax.

Sorry Dougie and Ernesto, but you two are just not selling it to me.

We need not constitute a new political system. To cure our Parliament of disease, we must roll back the state to remove the ridiculous amounts of power bestowed upon the Prime Minister; and I use that term in it's insulting historical context.

We must also weaken the whips system, we must punish politicians who fail to serve their constituency, constitute initiatives and return ultimate power back to Parliament.

In regards to tradition, tradition should be preserved where viable to do so. The House of Lords, The Monarchy, the Peerage and Speaker ceremonies are prime examples.

Originally Posted by Midas

My inclination is to agree with you on a lot of what you say, in particular that we don't live in a true democracy - what we have is a representational democracy where the ruling party is actually elected by a minority of the electorate - and that we need a great deal more transparency about where government money is going to and how much is spent on bureaucracy.

Where I agree, in part at least, with LA, is it's worthwhile retaining at least some of the tradition that's associated with our parliament and its procedures. Many of these have been handed down through the centuries and are in integral part of our heritage, and whilst I'm a believer in modernisation where it's necessary (and we do need a great deal of it), I also think that it's important to keep a sense of continuity through tradition.

Firstly, there was a quote beneath your post from Adrian Rogers. I have never advocated multiplying wealth by dividing it, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments in the quote.
Secondly, this continuity myth. What is it? How stable and unified is Britain? Nationalism is on the increase in all parts of the U.K., we've just had 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland, and our Head of State is powerless to stop wars, divisive political policies or even a coup should some extremists try to take action. Tradition has a place, but not at the expense of the advancement of democracy. Stability is the product of true democracy and we will never get it by clinging to feudal traditions, some of which actually stifle democracy. The low turnout at our elections is not down to people being disinterested, it is due to a lack of democracy.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

Firstly, there was a quote beneath your post from Adrian Rogers. I have never advocated multiplying wealth by dividing it, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments in the quote.
Secondly, this continuity myth. What is it? How stable and unified is Britain? Nationalism is on the increase in all parts of the U.K., we've just had 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland, and our Head of State is powerless to stop wars, divisive political policies or even a coup should some extremists try to take action. Tradition has a place, but not at the expense of the advancement of democracy. Stability is the product of true democracy and we will never get it by clinging to feudal traditions, some of which actually stifle democracy. The low turnout at our elections is not down to people being disinterested, it is due to a lack of democracy.

The quote is actually slightly abbreviated because of constraints to the length of the signature line. The first part goes "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving." but to me the bit I used seemed more appropriate to isolate and use!

I honestly don't know the answer about stability and continuity here in the UK. On one hand we do have centuries of tradition of being a united people, sort of anyway, and there's a huge amount of benefit to NI, Scotland and Wales in retaining many ties with Britain. But as you say, there's not a lot that the government can do if some form or other of extremism takes hold and tries to break away from the union completely. I can't see us resorting to what would effectively be a mini civil war to stop it!

As regards 'democracy', I agree. Representative democracy, whilst better than nothing, instills little confidence in the electorate, especially when the very name of politics has become synonymous with self-interest and deception We do need to sweep away a huge swathe of tradition, in the sense of the way the whole political system works, and replace it with a far more direct form of democracy via a proportionately represented means of electing our political parties and the day to day involvement of the people in those parts of the political process which don't require specialised knowledge. Roll on the day the majority can see this and actually do something about it!

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

Firstly, there was a quote beneath your post from Adrian Rogers. I have never advocated multiplying wealth by dividing it, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments in the quote.
Secondly, this continuity myth. What is it? How stable and unified is Britain? Nationalism is on the increase in all parts of the U.K., we've just had 30 years of conflict in Northern Ireland, and our Head of State is powerless to stop wars, divisive political policies or even a coup should some extremists try to take action. Tradition has a place, but not at the expense of the advancement of democracy. Stability is the product of true democracy and we will never get it by clinging to feudal traditions, some of which actually stifle democracy. The low turnout at our elections is not down to people being disinterested, it is due to a lack of democracy.

I completely disagree.

The growing nationalism in the United Kingdom; in my view, was heavily supported by the breaking of traditional governance. Devolution.

Thirty years of conflict in Northern Ireland due to the sovereignty over Northern Ireland not the political system. Whatever system we had, the issues of Northern Ireland would exist.

The low turn out at our elections are not down to our system. Remember that high turnouts were also a figure of our democratic system. The low turnout is due to the contempt the people have with our politicians.

You can modernise the state without effecting too much tradition.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Okay, this is in response to DougieG, ERNESTO and Midas.

The current system in which we operate is acceptable. It may be true to say that we do not operate a true democracy, however, in my view I do not think we need a "true" democracy. Our democratic system is the one that built Britain, defended Britain and claimed the Empire.

My question to you is, do you honestly believe that if we were to replace our system; with an American styled system for example, that we will attract different people?

The fact is we will not. Politics is a powerful game: Thus will always attract those sorts who seek that power. We do not need a new system, rather we need to roll back the state of our democracy, to a time where politicians acted in the interests of their constituency and not their personal gains.

If we were to make the Upper House elected, we would merely create another chamber for those elected politicians. Frankly, I do not want this.

The House of Lords provides fantastic value for money; It is a [nearly] whip-free chamber in which to scrutinise and pressure the Government.

Let's remember that on a couple of occasions, the House of Lords has defeated the Government, and on many more occasions the Government will retreat to avoid defeat.

The House of Lords is a chamber of knowledgeable individuals. In essence, the House of Lords is the meritocracy of Britain. It is from the House of Lords, we get these fantastically detailed reports that can either support or destroy the Governments own "research details/policies".

A clear example of this is immigration. The Government is adamant in that Immigration provides huge benefits to Britain. The House of Lords published a report indicating the fallacious nature of the Governments claim.

One must also look at the composition of the House of Lords in comparison to the House of Commons. The Commons is mainly filled with career politicians; many of which only know politics.

The House of Lords is composed of Academics, Investors, Bankers, Doctors, Surgeons, Bishops, Managers, Directors, Judges... the list just goes on.

Not only this; but for those Euro-fanatics amongst us, the House of Lords also has a committee which overlooks European Union directives, legislation and policy. It examines the contents in detail in context with the British interest.

The fact is, the House of Lords is a magnificent chamber of highly educated individuals. who shall govern us if not the meritocratic intelligentsia of these fair lands?*

If we are to constitute a second elected chamber, not only would we lose the intellectuals that compose the Lords but we would also be faced with a huge escalation in tax.

Sorry Dougie and Ernesto, but you two are just not selling it to me.

We need not constitute a new political system. To cure our Parliament of disease, we must roll back the state to remove the ridiculous amounts of power bestowed upon the Prime Minister; and I use that term in it's insulting historical context.

We must also weaken the whips system, we must punish politicians who fail to serve their constituency, constitute initiatives and return ultimate power back to Parliament.

In regards to tradition, tradition should be preserved where viable to do so. The House of Lords, The Monarchy, the Peerage and Speaker ceremonies are prime examples.

LA the system may well be acceptable to you but there are many people, including me, who find it unacceptable. Any form of hereditary/unelected power or privilege is morally wrong as far as I am concerned. So if I had my way, (I know I never will, there's only 20% of the population that support republicanism), the Monarchy would be one of the first things to go. It is unaccountable, ridiculously expensive and has abdicated responsibility for power many years ago and yet still we are expected to show deference to members of one family. The most talented and accomplished of our nation can never aspire to be Head of State and I think that is an insult to the nation. Why have we always striven to install republics in those countries we have either defeated or are at war against now? Why, if our system is so brilliantly acceptable, do we not install a monarchy?

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

LA the system may well be acceptable to you but there are many people, including me, who find it unacceptable. Any form of hereditary/unelected power or privilege is morally wrong as far as I am concerned. So if I had my way, (I know I never will, there's only 20% of the population that support republicanism), the Monarchy would be one of the first things to go. It is unaccountable, ridiculously expensive and has abdicated responsibility for power many years ago and yet still we are expected to show deference to members of one family. The most talented and accomplished of our nation can never aspire to be Head of State and I think that is an insult to the nation. Why have we always striven to install republics in those countries we have either defeated or are at war against now? Why, if our system is so brilliantly acceptable, do we not install a monarchy?

There is one major sentence in your paragraph which I want to focus on first:
"Any form of unelected power or privilege is morally wrong as far as I am concerned."

The Civil Service. You want all of the Civil Servants to be elected?


Why do you have a problem with the Monarchy in relation to power? It has no power. The Monarchy is traditional and symbolism thats it.


If you look at our system we have a Westminster Parliamentary system.
In this system the Monarchy has absolutely no power. The reason we do not install a Monarchy is because we don't want a Monarchy to run the country. We just like the Monarchy for it's tradition and symbolism.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

There is one major sentence in your paragraph which I want to focus on first:
"Any form of unelected power or privilege is morally wrong as far as I am concerned."

The Civil Service. You want all of the Civil Servants to be elected?


Why do you have a problem with the Monarchy in relation to power? It has no power. The Monarchy is traditional and symbolism thats it.


If you look at our system we have a Westminster Parliamentary system.
In this system the Monarchy has absolutely no power. The reason we do not install a Monarchy is because we don't want a Monarchy to run the country. We just like the Monarchy for it's tradition and symbolism.

Forgive me LA I did not make myself clear. Of course I don't want all civil-servants elected. I want legislators to be properly accountable which they are not at present and should have chosen my words more carefully.

Regarding the Monarchy. I believe the people of this country deserve the very best democracy and I think the Monarchy stands in the way of this and acts as a barrier to genuine democratic reform. How many people support the monarchy? We don't know definitively, we only have opinion polls to go on, and they, I think, say 80% of the population support it. This is an extrapolated figure as all polls are. We will never know until we have a national debate and we will never have that while the government, governments, shield the Monarchy from scrutiny. They, and the palace spin machine, work very hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is this wonderful family who are all doing their 'duty' for their country. We might find that the truth is a bit different if we were allowed to delve, and we can't do that because Gordon Brown has exempted the monarchy from the Freedom of Information Act. After all, we have been fooled for years that MPs are all public spirited people who want to make a difference, and the truth has recently emerged that the difference many of them want to make is in their wallets.
Compare a possible republican constitution with our present arrangement. Currently, sovereignty rests in Parliament (via the Crown), so no rights or liberties are ever safeguarded. Parliament can pass any law it likes, and as the PM is in control of Parliament, this puts almost limitless power in his hands. Our head of state is hereditary and unelected so therefore the Queen has no democratic mandate to challenge anything the government does. She simply does what she’s told by the PM. We can’t rely on the constitution, we can’t rely on our head of state. Instead, we have to rely on the generosity of politicians. A republican constitution, in my view, would be a better guarantee of our rights and liberties.
The monarchy, for me, symbolizes inequality, unaccountability, and lies at the heart of the failings of our political system and our society. While we have it we will remain a backward looking post-imperial joke. It has little power as you say, except on rare occasions when the Queen can influence who gets to be Prime Minister, but the institution of the monarchy is the source of all power in this country. The Crown is what gives parliament and government its power, the monarch hands most of her personal powers directly to the prime minister, or allows ministers to exercise those powers through the Privy Council. This gives unchecked power to central government.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

Re the quotes from Winston Churchill

I am a republican. That does not automatically mean I'm a socialist. Even if my politics are slightly leftist I am not a socialist. Being a republican means that I believe that the people should be sovereign and power should come from the people. What we have today is a system controlled almost entirely by those in power. Once we elect them they get to rule us, and they can do exactly what they want to do with no redress, and the power to rule over us comes from the Crown and not from us. If we were able to delegate power to those elected we could tell them the limitations of that power in the form of a written constitution. As it is, all we get to do is elect those who will rule over us.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

Forgive me LA I did not make myself clear. Of course I don't want all civil-servants elected. I want legislators to be properly accountable which they are not at present and should have chosen my words more carefully.

Regarding the Monarchy. I believe the people of this country deserve the very best democracy and I think the Monarchy stands in the way of this and acts as a barrier to genuine democratic reform. How many people support the monarchy? We don't know definitively, we only have opinion polls to go on, and they, I think, say 80% of the population support it. This is an extrapolated figure as all polls are. We will never know until we have a national debate and we will never have that while the government, governments, shield the Monarchy from scrutiny. They, and the palace spin machine, work very hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is this wonderful family who are all doing their 'duty' for their country. We might find that the truth is a bit different if we were allowed to delve, and we can't do that because Gordon Brown has exempted the monarchy from the Freedom of Information Act. After all, we have been fooled for years that MPs are all public spirited people who want to make a difference, and the truth has recently emerged that the difference many of them want to make is in their wallets.
Compare a possible republican constitution with our present arrangement. Currently, sovereignty rests in Parliament (via the Crown), so no rights or liberties are ever safeguarded. Parliament can pass any law it likes, and as the PM is in control of Parliament, this puts almost limitless power in his hands. Our head of state is hereditary and unelected so therefore the Queen has no democratic mandate to challenge anything the government does. She simply does what she’s told by the PM. We can’t rely on the constitution, we can’t rely on our head of state. Instead, we have to rely on the generosity of politicians. A republican constitution, in my view, would be a better guarantee of our rights and liberties.
The monarchy, for me, symbolizes inequality, unaccountability, and lies at the heart of the failings of our political system and our society. While we have it we will remain a backward looking post-imperial joke. It has little power as you say, except on rare occasions when the Queen can influence who gets to be Prime Minister, but the institution of the monarchy is the source of all power in this country. The Crown is what gives parliament and government its power, the monarch hands most of her personal powers directly to the prime minister, or allows ministers to exercise those powers through the Privy Council. This gives unchecked power to central government.

You make the same mistake as most.
Let me make this point perfectly clear. The Monarchy has NO power.
She does not choose the Prime Minister, she does not give Government power, she does not allow ministers to exercise power, she has absolutely NO power.

Parliament can make any law in any area. You mention the PM controlling parliament. I have also made this clear. That is a recent thing and does not have to be part of our system.

PM power as it is, was never part of our system.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

I am a republican. That does not automatically mean I'm a socialist. Even if my politics are slightly leftist I am not a socialist. Being a republican means that I believe that the people should be sovereign and power should come from the people. What we have today is a system controlled almost entirely by those in power. Once we elect them they get to rule us, and they can do exactly what they want to do with no redress, and the power to rule over us comes from the Crown and not from us. If we were able to delegate power to those elected we could tell them the limitations of that power in the form of a written constitution. As it is, all we get to do is elect those who will rule over us.

What are you quoting?
I click the little arrow and it takes me to my post that does not show anything about Churchill...

EDIT:

Okay I have noticed you are quoting my signature...
Why are you doing that?
The signature is not a post -_-

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

You make the same mistake as most.
Let me make this point perfectly clear. The Monarchy has NO power.
She does not choose the Prime Minister, she does not give Government power, she does not allow ministers to exercise power, she has absolutely NO power.

Parliament can make any law in any area. You mention the PM controlling parliament. I have also made this clear. That is a recent thing and does not have to be part of our system.

PM power as it is, was never part of our system.




What are you quoting?
I click the little arrow and it takes me to my post that does not show anything about Churchill...

EDIT:

Okay I have noticed you are quoting my signature...
Why are you doing that?
The signature is not a post -_-

Sorry LA, I said from the outset I was new to blogging. I do apologize.
I didn't realize it was your signature.

Now then, if, as you say, the Monarchy has absolutely no power, what purpose does it have? You have stated that "we" want them because of their symbolism and the tradition. What is the Monarchy symbolic of? As for the tradition of the Monarchy, much of it is a recent invention. Trooping the Colour, Changing the Guard, the coronation and the State Opening of Parliament have all been invented since the reign of Victoria. They are part of the monarchy's continuing Google Page Ranking campaign. It's all designed, in my view, to distract the people from the more serious questions about why the monarchy exists. Were we to become a republic, there would still be ceremony, but more meaningful.
I concede that the Queen cannot choose the PM, but she has done so on the advice of government elder statesmen in 1963 when Sir Alec Douglas Hume replaced Harold Macmillan. This does not seem to me a satisfactory way of replacing a PM.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

Sorry LA, I said from the outset I was new to blogging. I do apologize.
I didn't realize it was your signature. [1]

Now then, if, as you say, the Monarchy has absolutely no power, what purpose does it have? [2] You have stated that "we" want them because of their symbolism and the tradition. What is the Monarchy symbolic of? As for the tradition of the Monarchy, much of it is a recent invention. Trooping the Colour, Changing the Guard, the coronation and the State Opening of Parliament have all been invented since the reign of Victoria[3]. They are part of the monarchy's continuing Google Page Ranking campaign. It's all designed, in my view, to distract the people from the more serious questions about why the monarchy exists. Were we to become a republic, there would still be ceremony, but more meaningful.
I concede that the Queen cannot choose the PM, but she has done so on the advice of government elder statesmen in 1963 when Sir Alec Douglas Hume replaced Harold Macmillan. This does not seem to me a satisfactory way of replacing a PM[4].

[1] Fair enough We all make mistakes
[2] Tradition and Symbolism
[3] Yes but the Monarchy itself is tradition.
[4] The Queen has no power under any circumstance. The Party Senior Officials chose the new Prime Minister but merely put it through the Crown for sake of it.

We will have to agree to disagree LA. I'm never going to convert you to republicanism and I've been a died in the wool republican since an early age, ever since Princess Margaret visited the town,(now a city), where I live. She was driven past my home where my mother had bedecked the house with flags and bunting, along with hundreds of other residents in the road which was lined with crowds. As she went past she had a face like a wet weekend and totally ignored the people who had taken the trouble to welcome this superior being to our midst. From that moment I was anti-royal and continue to be so.
Over the years I've rationalized that anti-royal feeling I had at the age of 6 so that now I am a committed republican. I think the people of this country deserve a democracy that genuinely puts us in charge. Children should be inspired to believe they can achieve anything they want and our democracy should encourage that sense of aspiration. The monarchy does not do this, instead it embodies a spirit of deference and dependence on others. Monarchy is at the heart of the British constitution and therefore denies us true democracy.
I could go on and on about the other myths connected with the Monarchy : It's good for tourism, Royals do a lot for charity, they work extremely hard, They are a stabilising and unifying influence on our political life, they are value for money etc. but obviously I will be wasting my time.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

We will have to agree to disagree LA. I'm never going to convert you to republicanism and I've been a died in the wool republican since an early age, ever since Princess Margaret visited the town,(now a city), where I live. She was driven past my home where my mother had bedecked the house with flags and bunting, along with hundreds of other residents in the road which was lined with crowds. As she went past she had a face like a wet weekend and totally ignored the people who had taken the trouble to welcome this superior being to our midst. From that moment I was anti-royal and continue to be so.
Over the years I've rationalized that anti-royal feeling I had at the age of 6 so that now I am a committed republican. I think the people of this country deserve a democracy that genuinely puts us in charge. Children should be inspired to believe they can achieve anything they want and our democracy should encourage that sense of aspiration. The monarchy does not do this, instead it embodies a spirit of deference and dependence on others. Monarchy is at the heart of the British constitution and therefore denies us true democracy.
I could go on and on about the other myths connected with the Monarchy : It's good for tourism, Royals do a lot for charity, they work extremely hard, They are a stabilising and unifying influence on our political life, they are value for money etc. but obviously I will be wasting my time.

You want the people to be in charge.
Turning Britain into a Republican Country will NOT achieve this.

As our Monarchy has no power nor influence, in terms of the "peoples power" it is irrelevant.

To give the people more power you merely constitute initiatives, empower local communities, empower local authorities, subsidiarity and striping the PM of certain powers.

I like the crown as a safety net, so if the s**t hits the fan there's some safety net. Plus I think it's cool to have a monarchy, Kings and Queens rock. I'd say that the Crown's power these days is virtually none, but it's a required institution.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

I like the crown as a safety net, so if the s**t hits the fan there's some safety net. Plus I think it's cool to have a monarchy, Kings and Queens rock. I'd say that the Crown's power these days is virtually none, but it's a required institution.

I'd agree with that, plus the Monarchy is a great tourist attraction, or at least everything that surrounds it is. On the wider aspects though, the UK could certainly do with a huge constitutional shake up to enable Parliament to be far more accountable and transparent as well as worthy of being in the 21st century.

Originally Posted by Midas

I'd agree with that, plus the Monarchy is a great tourist attraction, or at least everything that surrounds it is. On the wider aspects though, the UK could certainly do with a huge constitutional shake up to enable Parliament to be far more accountable and transparent as well as worthy of being in the 21st century.

What safety net? The Queen cannot intervene on the people's behalf, we've already established the Queen has no power. As for Tourism there is no evidence to back up the claim that the Monarchy contributes significantly to its revenue in this country. Windsor Castle is the only Royal residence in Britain's top 20 attractions and that is at number 17.
The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even got any statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of Britain as a tourist destination.
If the Crown's power is zero, why on earth is it a required institution?

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

You want the people to be in charge.
Turning Britain into a Republican Country will NOT achieve this.

As our Monarchy has no power nor influence, in terms of the "peoples power" it is irrelevant.

To give the people more power you merely constitute initiatives, empower local communities, empower local authorities, subsidiarity and striping the PM of certain powers.

If we're going to give the people more power, what about the power to choose a Head of State from amongst us? What is so special about having a Head of State who has no power to intervene on the people's behalf. Who is going to do that in any future crisis?

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

What safety net? The Queen cannot intervene on the people's behalf, we've already established the Queen has no power. As for Tourism there is no evidence to back up the claim that the Monarchy contributes significantly to its revenue in this country. Windsor Castle is the only Royal residence in Britain's top 20 attractions and that is at number 17.
The government body responsible for tourism, Visit Britain, hasn't even got any statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows it is not a key factor in the promotion of Britain as a tourist destination.
If the Crown's power is zero, why on earth is it a required institution?

I've not mentioned any safety net.

In terms of the total cost of running the UK, that of the monarchy is basically insignificant; far, far more is wasted on pointless politically inspired projects for minority groups for example, to say nothing of how much is wasted in bureaucracy. Why get rid of a much loved, loved worldwide, institution simply for the sake of it? I'm with LA on this one, although I quite accept that there are many other areas of tradition connected with parliament which are anachronistic.

Originally Posted by ERNESTO

If we're going to give the people more power, what about the power to choose a Head of State from amongst us? What is so special about having a Head of State who has no power to intervene on the people's behalf. Who is going to do that in any future crisis?

Why is that important?

Our Head of Government; Gordon Brown [Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury] takes care of all issues that a normal Head of State would do.

The Queen is the figure head for Britain and the Commonwealth.

Originally Posted by Midas

I've not mentioned any safety net.

In terms of the total cost of running the UK, that of the monarchy is basically insignificant; far, far more is wasted on pointless politically inspired projects for minority groups for example, to say nothing of how much is wasted in bureaucracy. Why get rid of a much loved, loved worldwide, institution simply for the sake of it? I'm with LA on this one, although I quite accept that there are many other areas of tradition connected with parliament which are anachronistic.

Precisely. The Monarchy is relatively inexpensive and is the symbol of Britain across the globe.

However, can you give an example of what anachronisms we have in Parliament?

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

However, can you give an example of what anachronisms we have in Parliament?

The whole ceremonial aspect of it, to say nothing of the way in which parliament itself is laid out - for instance I see little point in keeping the tradition of having the major political parties facing each other, separated by lines which are two sword's lengths apart! I accept that a lot of the ceremony is ancient, but it achieves nothing, is of little interest to, and isn't even seen by, the vast majority of people.

That Victorian Gothic monstrosity of the Houses of Parliament themselves is also very outdated and totally unsuited to trying to run a modern government, with its warren of tiny rooms and complete lack of any decent facilities for from the amount of communications and computing equipment that any building needs these days. What we need is a modern building such as that built for the Scottish Parliament, with a large conference style debating chamber and MPs rooms and all the peripheral conference rooms and general offices equipped to the same standard you'd expect to find in any large modern office.

Originally Posted by Midas

The whole ceremonial aspect of it, to say nothing of the way in which parliament itself is laid out - for instance I see little point in keeping the tradition of having the major political parties facing each other, separated by lines which are two sword's lengths apart! I accept that a lot of the ceremony is ancient, but it achieves nothing, is of little interest to, and isn't even seen by, the vast majority of people. [1]

That Victorian Gothic monstrosity of the Houses of Parliament themselves is also very outdated and totally unsuited to trying to run a modern government, with its warren of tiny rooms and complete lack of any decent facilities for from the amount of communications and computing equipment that any building needs these days. What we need is a modern building such as that built for the Scottish Parliament, with a large conference style debating chamber and MPs rooms and all the peripheral conference rooms and general offices equipped to the same standard you'd expect to find in any large modern office.[2]

[1] Totally disagree. Those sorts of traditions affect nothing, thus there is no problem in keeping them alive.

[2] Yes and No. I want the Houses of Parliament to remain in Westminster Abbey Palace. I have seen the Scottish Parliament building and it is; in my view, bloody awful.

Unlike some, I dislike all these modern and "contemporary" buildings. I much prefer The Old Buildings like Parliament, British Library, The Courts.

In regards to Westminster, you merely rearrange the interior. By this I mean, tear down a few walls to establish conference rooms. Moving a wall to increase the size of the Commons.