Quote Originally Posted by John2 View Post
I'm not saying our system doesn't work, it does, it's one of the most successful democracies in the world.

I'm just saying we should always strive to make it better and more democratic, we agree it's not perfect.

You're right about the Lords. The changes in 1999 did much to improve the situation, I can stomach appointments made by elected governments much in the way I can accept appointments in the judiciary system. The lack of restrictions and bloat of the lords certainly needs addressing and I would not be opposed to an elected lords, but it would need to be much different to how we elect MPs I think, we want to attract a different type of person.

People say the monarchy doesn't interfere with our government, but we know for a fact that the monarchy enjoys special influence. Prince Charles abuses his influence to lobby the government, peddling his utter ignorant position about things like homeopathy, just look at the black spider letters.

We also have to trust the monarchy to remain benevolent. They technically have huge powers, we're just relying on their common sense not to use them... why not just remove that risk from the system completely, history is full of examples of people who have abused their power. That said, I'd kind of like them to abuse it as it would be a very swift way to end the institution, I just think we can remove those powers in a way that retains the integrity of the institution from a traditional and even tourist perspective. The family and the palaces aren't going anywhere even if they cease to be head of state.
I think that after Charles the connection between the Royals and political system will lessen. I don't think Will ad Harry have the stomach for it.
The Queen has sat through years of deminishing responsibilities and Charles will be the last to benefit from connection.

Good debate.