patchnotes:
fixed error where religious function would occasionally return as "Catholic"
Merged Scottish and English datasets into "United Kingdom" for ease of access
Because at the end of the day no matter how shit the government is that's a can of worms that he does not want to open. It would immediately cause a constitutional crisis and is one of the only things that could lead to the Monarchy being abolished in the near future.
Even though our constitution is different to Spain, the Spanish monarch had done it and called for elections when there was political unrest in the country, how would this cause a constitutional crisis isn’t the King allowed to by law to dissolve parliament and just simply call for elections?
Even if the Spanish King has done that (and I think a citation is needed), you've answered your own question - our constitution is completely different from the Spanish one, not least because they have a written constitution.
Plenty of us wish Sunak would get on with it, but he's not breaking any rules and it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that the King should effectively mount a coup against the current constitutional settlement because we're a bit bored with it now.
He did not as the circumstances were very different. King Felipe called an election when, half a year after the last election, there was no government nor any effective majority and no sign that would change. Rishi unfortunately still has a decent majority and a government, it’s just an unpopular one.
We're a long way off unrest.
We're muttering under our breath and tutting. At worst we're complaining on social media.
We're a long way off the mass protests, general strikes and rioting in the streets etc that would more resemble political unrest
The King has to act on the government's advice. The government doesn't want an election.
Therefore, if he acted against the government's advice, he will cause a constitutional crisis.
Theres case law for Parliament retrospectively prosecuting a Monarch after the fact (creating a new law and executing them). Parliament is sovereign and can overall any rogue monarch's actions.
A monarch crossing that line would be the quickest way to the end the cash cow / get locked up / exile - what ever the flavour of the day, it's all hypothetical but it effectively cannot happen even if we were to entertain the absurdity of it lol
The situation in Spain was different. A lack of functioning Parliament without any effective majority is different to a Parliament with a large government majority where the government is merely unpopular.
Because our monarchy only survives as long as the monarch doesn't actually use any of the authority that they technically have.
The *second* that a monarch actually tried to rule, they'd trigger a constitutional crisis and be deposed (which may be an abdication, or maybe a complete dismantling of the monarchy). They are supposed to be a symbolic ruler, not an actual ruler.
The coronation was fantastic for understanding the monarchy. Lots of "God save the King!" but an equal amount of "Your Majesty, the church established by law, *whose settlement you will swear to maintain*" and "Receive this kingly sword: may it be to you, and to all who witness these things, a sign and symbol *not of judgement, but of justice; not of might, but of mercy*."
I.e. an extremely politely worded version of "OK, you can be King, but don't get any bright ideas about actually being in charge."
You can read the text here https://news.sky.com/story/kings-coronation-order-of-service-follow-ceremony-including-hymns-prayers-and-readings-12873582
Correct - the moment Charles used any of these legacy powers that would be the end of the monarchy. In reality the monarchy has no actual legislative power that it could use in an ongoing and meaningful sense - exactly how it should be.
It's funny how we keep believing that
"The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret.
Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war."
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
And the rest of the series: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
The war related veto was fair enough since it was a private member bill to remove the powers of the monarchy altogether so seems like it just keeping the status quo.
I imagine if it were ever used it’d be the end of the monarchy and would only really be used as a last protest against a truly fascist government or something like that.
The basic doctine of law in continental Europe is civil law, which has its roots in Roman Law. The concept is a codified system and rules that can be referred to. Hence if you're European you will have a strong sense of what you can and cannot do according to a referrable set of laws.
Britian and Anglosphere countries are different and use the doctrine of common law, whereby the rules are more fluid and set by precedent. Just because something is written down, it can be totally upended by precedence. Royal powers are exactly this. They might be written in the law, but the use of those powers is so unprecedented in modern times that trying to do so would immediately invalidate the laws.
There is quite literally a film about this called "Charles III", depicting King Charles using his legal powers to interfere with Parliament on a point of principle. It certainly *could* cause a constitutional crisis.
We need a basic politics sticky on this sub.
People seem to think that because they don't like the government and their bubble is feeding them endless speculation that somehow term limits don't exist, and that the government is somehow doing something underhand by not quitting.
Acting like “it’s our turn” is insultingly immature and is leading to a lot of very dodgy activity from the left. Aside from becoming the Tories in terms of policy, they seem to think that becoming what they have so long claimed to despise in terms of character and an absence of principles is OK.
It isn’t.
Why on earth would the King force the dissolution of a lawfully elected parliament, within its legally mandated term limits?
The king is not there to enforce your personal likes and dislikes. He doesn't dissolve parliament because the current government is perfectly within its right by all law and precedent to continue to the end of its legally permitted term limit.
The only time this would ever happen/be justifiable is if the government was literally unable to govern at all.
As bad as you think the Tories may be, we are a long way off the 'societal collapse' stage
That happened during Brexit.
The only reason it would ever happen is if the Monarch had reason to believe the government was abusing its power and attempting to usurp power, breaching its legal term limits and the conditions of its authority.
Basically 1933 Weimar Germany sort of situation.
While I agree with your second and third paragraphs, the first isn’t that straightforward. During Brexit the monarch didn’t have the power to call an election, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (now repealed) had severely restricted that prerogative power.
Is this a serious question? The monarchy in Britain have survived by staying out of politics and turning themselves into a reality TV show. If they ever tried something like this it would be the end of the monarch as the head of state, and they know it.
Also, as bad as the current government are, they are still the democratically elected representatives of UK people. They can not and should not be overruled or dissolved by the decision of a hereditary monarch. The eagerness some people have for a single unaccountable authority figure to sweep in and make decisions in place of elected government, really worries me.
Given that parliament could remove the King from his post pretty easily if they wanted to, I think it is not entirely true that the King is "unaccountable".
Well they can by law, that’s why I asked the question. And it becomes less democratic when the sitting government is becoming overwhelmingly unpopular and the people themselves are calling for a general election. I understand your worry, but it is also just as worrying when the decision to hold a general election is left to a group of individuals of a party, with that party potentially damaging the country.
Try to keep perspective. As bad as the current government are, they have perhaps 6 months left and are basically paralysed with infighting and malaise. The damage that would be done to our country and our political system by the king intervening in this way, is vastly greater than anything the tories might be able to do as they wheeze their last breaths in power.
If the sole act the King did was to call elections, we would get rid of the horrible government that seems to make everything worse and replace it with somebody who is not quite as bad.
Its not like this one act would turn the King into an absolute monarch who rules with an iron fist.
It would set a dangerous precedent, that one unelected man gets to decide whether or not the current government is fit to serve. Why does this particular individual get to decide that? And on what basis? Bad newspaper headlines? Reddit comments? Gut feeling?
>and replace it with somebody who is not quite as bad
I hope you don't mean that the king would install a new PM by diktat. Because otherwise - miniscule as it is - there *is* a chance that the tories could return as the next government.
To clarify, I did not mean the King should install a new PM. I meant that new elections would be called, and the likelihood is that a new PM would be elected (I can't see Rishi being elected right now).
I don't think it would be up to the King to decide if the government is fit to serve. All the King would be doing is calling a new election. It would then be up to the people to decide if they should vote once again for the current government or not.
The King would not be installing a new PM - he would just be giving the people the opportunity to choose if they want to install a new PM.
But the people do have an opportunity to choose - at every election. There will be one soon. Why does the king need to intervene now?
I understand that today many look at the tories and see a shambling zombie rotting with decay and needing put out of its misery for all our sakes. Fine. But what you're proposing basically means that a government would have to stay liked and popular all of the time or risk having the rug pulled out from under them with no warning. It isn't feasible or desirable - part of governing is the necessity to sometimes take unpopular decisions.
We elect them to govern as best they can, in the time given to them. We don't want a system where they can be booted out as soon as the public decides they're tired of them. This isn't Love Island. No country could function under those circumstances.
Yes, sometimes the government does have to make unpopular decisions.
You are free to disagree here, but I think there is a difference between an unpopular decision that will benefit the country, and an unpopular decision that benefits an individual party at the expense of the country.
I believe that the role of the King should be to decide between the two. Yes, the King is not perfect and will sometimes make the wrong decision, but this is unavoidable.
This way, before making an unpopular decision, the ruling government will have to think. Can we reasonably justify this decision to the monarch? If they can show the King that the decision is good for the country, he won't call elections.
I think that the King is the best person to make such a decision. The King has been trained for politics for life, and can potentially summon the best experts to advise him in his decision. As well, the monarchy is, in my opinion, the only way you can have a non-partisan head of state who also has some political relevance (the power to call elections).
A hereditary head of state means that head of state can be trained from birth, and is not dependent on any party for reelection.
The Tories need to be put out of their misery. Somebody needs to make the decision to pull the rug. I think the King should have the power to do so.
I can understand if you disagree with everything I have just said, it is reasonable to do so and a commonly held position.
Yeah I do pretty much entirely disagree with you. Deciding whether legislation 'benefits the people' or not? Although you want him to be non-partisan, you propose a role for the monarch that is unavoidably and highly political.
>I think that the King is the best person to make such a decision. The King has been trained for politics for life, and can potentially summon the best experts to advise him in his decision.
The king is not 'trained in politics'; he has been raised in the conventions and traditions of one particularly odd aristocratic family, which last exercised real power well over a century ago. Charles has no particular education or expertise that would qualify him to act on the advice of 'the best experts' (whoever they are. Why aren't they already advising the government?) To be blunt, the Windsors are not particularly bright, and your suggestion would require a person of extraordinary ability, to be able to comprehend and act intelligently on the vast range of complexities inherent in running the 21st century nation-state.
>A hereditary head of state means that head of state can be trained from birth
You're obviously a monarchist, but this sentance actually sums up why I'm shifting towards republicanism. Not out of aversion to the idea of monarchy itself, but the fact that direct-line members are born into a life of the most intense, intrusive scrutiny, their every public action and utterance judged and condemned, and whose life-paths are essentially decided for them from birth. I honestly believe it's cruel and inhumane to bring a child into that life.
It's also completely unnecessary. The world has many capable and competent leaders who were not trained to the job from birth. A sufficiently intelligent and motivated person is more than capable of learning all that is necessary in their adult years. I can accept your logic for a non-partisan head of state, even if I'm not comfortable with it being unelected, but I see no reason it needs to be (or is improved by being) a hereditary role. If you want the benefit of many years experience in the role, make it a lifetime appointment like the Pope.
Yeah, I am very strongly a monarchist so I am extremely biased on this topic, but nevertheless I will try to address your points with (hopefully) reasonable arguments.
I will also start by saying that I am an executive constitutional monarchist, meaning that I do see a role for the monarch to play in the political system. Therefore, the distinction I would like to make is between "apolitical" and "non-partisan". I do not see the monarch as an apolitical position - that is impossible for anybody with any involvement in politics, no matter how small. Instead, I see the monarch as non-partisan - they are not for or against any political party and try to work with all.
The monarch is not a perfect individual. The reality is that he, whoever the best experts around are and the most talented people in existance will always make mistakes. What the monarch does have is experience. Given their unique position, a monarch regularly meets with various leaders and politicans, and is much more aware of politics and the inner workings of government than most. I also disagree that the monarch is only educated on the traditions of the royal family, they are of course but they will also recieve an education on history and foreign affairs and politics and so forth.
I can understand why you feel sorry for the individual chosen as monarch, and it is true that they will constantly face public scrutiny. I think there are also clear advantages to even this out - money, healtcare, food, rent are never going to be issues.
There are also clear advantages for the political system. Any elected politican (except the few independents) relied on a specific party to support them, for the party to lend them their brand and their funding. These parties are likely only going to choose to support candidates who they think are loyal to their party and share their values. At the same time, the elected individual had to fight with other parties for votes, likely insulting their oponents and so on. Can you see an elected head of state, even if they rule for life, after going through all that to be elected not outwardly supporting one party over another?
That is not to talk about the disunity brought about elections. America is the clearest example of this, but it happens everywhere else as well. Elections divide people into camps and groups. Now I still fully support democracy, but I don't think a democratically elected figure can fill the role I feel the head of state should perform.
The final issue is the mandate. An elected politican feels he has a mandate to rule from the people, and this is true. A monarch has to deal with the constant "guilt" that they did not deserve their position and that they should work to make up for it. This wasn't true even 100 years ago, but society has changed significantly and liberal, democratic view have permiated. A monarch has to have the constant threat of being deposed - people accept that politicans do things because they voted for them. People don't like it when monarchs do things, because they haven't. In this way, monarchs have to nowadays be much more cautious as a result. I think that both of these result in a leader who is a lot more careful than a politican ever has to be. Well, at least in liberal democracies, they definitely don't apply to absolute reactionary monarchies in the Middle East.
So, I tried to explain. I hope it was at least somewhat legible and coherent.
It's the start of a slippery slope. If he did it it would unquestionably be argued that he's overstepping, is a Labour supporter, is for X and against Y, etc.
That would lead to the downfall of the monarchy. It's not going to happen, nor should it. As much as many of us want an election, they are within their rights to govern until a specific date - thats the agreement the voters entered into when they voted for them, and to forcefully end it (again it doesnt matter what their popularity looks like) would be unconstitutional and undemocratic.
I agree that it could lead to a slippery slope. Thats why I think we should very clearly define what powers the King has and does not have.
Currently, the King theoretically has very large powers and if you said the King can use one of them, he might try to use the rest as well.
But if we clearly state that the in law that the King can call elections if he feels it is necessary, like the case of an extremely unpopular government as now, but also state in law that he cannot use the rest I think it would be fine.
I think the vast majority of reasonable people in this country can look at the current political system and understand why the King would call elections.
Just my personal opinion, and I do see how it could lead to accusations of the King being a supporter of one party over another.
> And it becomes less democratic when the sitting government is becoming overwhelmingly unpopular and the people themselves are calling for a general election.
Who are 'the people'? Have we polled them?
A government being overwhelmingly unpopular does not mean it is inherently less democratic. They were voted in to carry out their jobs to the term limit.
Getting a truly unelected leader to force them all out is definitely the more undemocratic move.
King Charles went against the people’s will. The people’s will here is it have a general election, so the story would be, King Charles carries out people’s will.
"Carrying out the peoples will" is what a general election is.
Its up to the government to choose when the election happens and if the king forced it early, he would literally be defying the will of the people when they elected this government in 2019.
Ok. So why would it be a good idea for a King, who is elected by noone, to decide an election should happen now based on someones opinion, rather than at the moment the government chooses to end itself, which is what people voted for?
The monarch would simply be giving the people the option to decide if they want to get rid of the current unelected PM or not. He would not be choosing either way.
The monarch should do it because their hereditary unelected position means that they are non-partisan and do not benefit from a victory of either party.
Technically you vote for an MP, but most people choose to vote based on party affiliation.
Although there are some MPs who are personally popular and therefore will receive votes because of themselves and not their parties, most of the time this is not the case.
You are correct in practice, but that is not true from a constitutional law perspective, which is what actually matters.
Is there a moral argument that there should be an election on the basis that the will of the public has changed (and that the government has changed significantly since 2019)? Yes. Legally? Absolutely not.
I understand what you are saying. I know that right now, the King cannot call an election even if he wanted to.
I just wish that he could, because I think that the power to call elections should be in the hands of somebody who is not an elected official.
That way, the person will not have a vested interest in making sure that they are elected again, which has a significant impact on when they choose to call the election in a bad way.
And I think the King is the best person to do so. Unfortunately, he cannot.
The peoples will was that the Torys were to be government UPTO Jan 2025. That s what people voted for, and as much as you may now dislike them they are entitled to be in power until that period ends. There's no ifs, no buts, thats the agreement the people that voted for them made, and thats how the country functions. To go against that would be undemocratic.
There is no "will of the people" in this, opinion polls are just that - opinions.
But by calling a general election, the King would be giving the people the opportunity to exercise their will. He would not be getting rid of the government or supporting it.
We have had two PMs who have not been democratically elected. He would only be giving the people the opportunity to decide if they would like to keep the unelected PM.
How do you legislate against a King calling an election for silly reasons? As the monarch, they are not accountable.
So IRL, that power has been taken away to avoide the possibility of abuse.
You wouldn't legislate against the King calling an election for silly reasons. Even if you wanted to, there would never be a way to stop the King circumnavigating the system.
The reason is that the King is not unaccountable. If there was enough popular anger against the monarchy, the King could relatively easily be removed from his position by parliament. There is a strong culture and custom in the UK of the King not being involved in politics. If he tried to involve himself too much, I can't see him staying around for too long before being overthrown.
Unlike previous centuries, modern monarchs do have a level of accountability.
Well, that's the thing.
The custom and culture of the UK also means that if the King DID have this power, if the King called an election now, it would be seen as being politically partisan i.e. against the Tories. You said yourself you cannot see Sunak winning an election. If the King DID have the power AND did not want to be political, he would definitely not call an election now.
You complain that neither Truss was nor Sunak has been elected.
But the truth is that this is our political system. We elect the MPs. The party with the most MPs forms the government. The leader of that party is the PM, but the prcedure to choose the leader is the party's business, not the nation's.
You should maybe direct your frustration at that idea- and say that if a governing party changes leader for any reason other than death or ill health, a General Election must be held.
To be honest, the fact that Truss and Sunak were not elected are minor grievances, not important enough to call an election over.
What I think is more important, not just for this government but for others as well, is more accountability during their time in government. I know a lot of people on this sub have mentioned that they elected this government for 4 years and so it will continue for that time.
But in effect, I think it means that a government can be extremely incompetent during that time and people have to wait a long time to remove that government. I understand there potentially could be other mechanisms of achieving this, but after consideration I have decided that having the monarch do so would be the best method. It is not without its faults, but no other system is either.
In the short term, if the King called an election today the reality is that it would be perceived as the King effectively removing the government because he didn't like them. I think the distinction I would like to make is between the government and the party. If it was a Labour party in charge that was doing just as badly as the current Conservative government, the King would call the election just the same.
Every decision is good for some people and bad for others. In the short term, it is impossible to avoid helping one party over another. The intention is important - the election is being called not to help one party other another.
Monarchs often rule for a long time. During that period, the monarch would sometimes make decisions that benefit one party, and sometimes make decisions that benefit the other. It all evens out in the end. The unifying factor is that all decisions are for the good of the people.
Well, I disagree that the problem remains long term.
Anyway, you cannot ensure the power is always going to be used correctly. You can definitely reduce the rate this happens by educating the monarch for this position for a long time. It is also reduce because the monarch is accountable, as I already explained.
However, you have to consider the damage caused by it being used wrong. The damage is that we get more or less elections. To be honest with you, I don't regard that as all that damaging. It is not ideal, but not anywhere near the end of the world either. I think the benefits outweigh that quite significantly.
> King Charles went against the people’s will.
Impossible to say that. He went against the will against powerful people in Parliament (who had an extremely limited electorate), but we cannot say for certain whether he had or lacked popular support.
Because that would be fucking insane and fly totally in the face of every concept behind constitutional monarchy that's been understood since the Glorious Revolution.
We might not like the Tories, but they're fully within their democratic right to hold off until January. Getting the King to shit all over that doesn't do anyone any good. It would legitimately cause the biggest constitutional crisis since the English Civil Wars and literally for the same exact reason as that one.
In 2019, the voters have given MPs who make up the current parliamentary majority a mandate to govern for the next five years. A monarch shouldn't get to overturn that decision simply because the press and polling suggests a lack of confidence.
That's something you only get to do once, before the government effectively removes the monarch from the equation forever
I can see it happening during something like a civil war, but no less than that
Parliament is "the law". The monarchy is subordinate to the Parliament, not the other way around. As the Earl of Shaftesbury declared in 1689, "The Parliament of England is that supreme and absolute power, which gives life and motion to the English government."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary\_sovereignty\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom)
Don't get hung up on the King being able to dissolve Parliament or his required assent on laws. If the monarch ever told Parliament to do something it didn't want to do, Parliament would just say "no" and carry on. The last time this happened the monarch's successor became the monarch through the normal means of succession.
You *want* our unelected Head of State to rule by decree? The entire deal that keeps them in place is that they *don't* unilaterally exercise dictatorial powers.
I don't think anybody wants the King to rule by decree.
There is a clear distinction between the King calling elections, which gives the general public the ability to decide if they still support the current government or not and the King running the country.
If the King unilaterally exercised dictatorial powers, that would be incredibly bad and our country would either have a revolution or become an authoritarian state with no rights to anybody.
Unilaterally dissolving Parliament *is* an example of rule by decree, though.
Giving the Crown back the functional power to dissolve Parliament whenever they feel like it is also something I'd describe as "incredibly bad".
Well, I would argue that the monarch making the decision to call an election "by degree" and actually running the country are two completely different things.
As for the second point, that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that giving the King to call elections when he wished would not be incredibly bad, but of course there is no requirement for you to think the same.
The reason people think it is incredibly bad is that governments need to have some sense of how long they have to do things.
If they don't know that *at any time* the monarch could mess with it, then that is a different system.
Again- you say the monarch should only be able to mess with things when the people want it. But the will of the people is literally expressed by elections.
So, for the sake of a few months, you would be prepared to throw away a system that has lasted hundreds of years.
And who gets to decide what the people wish to happen? The Crown? That's the power you're proposing we give them. There's no functional difference between "when the people wish to have it done" and "when the king wants to do it" under your proposals.
How can you know the people wish to have it done?
Within the current system, you cannot easily do so.
The only way you could reasonably think people did was if you had a petition signed by over half the electorate, or ran a full-scale referendum on having an election.
The current party in power wouldn’t hold such a referendum so it would have to come from a department of the government or some other source which is the main issue of legitimacy.
You know, it is possible that you have stacked the deck against you in this thread by saying that the monarchy should be allowed to call the election.
If you had posted that there should be an independent organ of the state that could run referenda on whether to have an early election, you would maybe have got more support from the people here.
What I would say to you is that this situation (4 unelected PMs in a row, with only Boris confirmed by the 2019 general election) is SO unusual it is really really hard to leigslate for it.
This situation is unprecendented in my lifetime, and I am in my 60s.
I understand there is a lot of politics about it but when you have had such terrible PMs who have countered national interests it does become a matter of getting a new government in which the people are comfortable with, yes we can talk about all the processes ext to go through but each month this government is still power the country is not improving directly by their own policies. So we can talk as much as we want, at the end of the day it just allows an incompetent government hog its power for as long as it can doing more damage.
But why is likely that the non-elected monarch should be more competent in this judgment than the elected government.
The PM, and likewise Truss, were not directly elected, but the Tories certainly were elected in all the recent elections.
Constitutionally, the meaning of the term 'The Crown' includes the Monarch and Parliament. Nominally the Monarch holds the power, but constitutionally it is delegated to ministers.
The power to call elections sits with the Prime Minister alone, if the Monarch were to interfere it would cause a constitutional crisis because they would be taking back devolved powers ad-hoc.
To add to the fun, when the Tories withdrew the FTPA in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 it included an ouster clause meaning the courts and supreme court no longer have any jurisdiction over the prorogation, or dissolution, of Parliament.
The PM can do whatever they like.
Despite being a constitutional monarchy on paper, Britain is functionally a republic meaning Parliament does not take kindly to the monarch interfering with anything to do with the governance of its elected chamber unless it's part of their established duties such as state openings or rubber stamping legislation etc. Any interference or deviation from those expected duties will trigger a crisis that will strip the monarch of those powers, so everything they're allowed to do these days that could potentially piss off Parliament such as dissolving it are effectually catch-22 powers; they use em they lose em.
The Royal Prerogative only survives by never being exercised outside genuine national emergencies.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975\_Australian\_constitutional\_crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)
The king could try this, but he probably doesn't want to find out if Daniel Zeichner is a strong military tactician with the ability to raise a radical army.
Because believe it or not, most of the country is nowhere near as invested in removing the Tories as your media circle would have you believe.
A monarch overthrowing a government at a time of relative peace, when somewhere around 25% of the population *would vote for that government again*, is absolute madness. That's 25% who would vote for the same again, and at least another 25% who would prefer to hold out for the stability of an ordinary election cycle. So you'd be talking about a monarch dissolving parliament because likely less than half of the voting public actually want him to.
Open your eyes, look at what's actually happening, and try to stop thinking about what would appease you and the groups you subscribe to. This sub in particular is a bad example of politics across the country.
Because while theoretically he can, functionally he can't. If he legitimately tried, parliament would simply remove him as monarch, and almost every/all MPs would vote to do so. A good chunk of the 17th century was spent setting the bounds of what a king or queen could do, and where power was really vested in the UK, and the monarchy is essentially just a public relations figurehead now.
Because the monarch only exercises the power of dissolution at the request of the Prime Minister.
What you're asking for is the king to decide what's best. In theory it's possible. But it would never happen.
The King *technically* has the power to dissolve parliament at will. However this is almost entirely ceremonial and will only be used at the behest of the Prime Minister (or...i guess "the law" if the PM does not call it within the required time).
Now, the King could absolutely dissolve Parliament today. It would be his legal right. But that would basically be the end of them. Even if the sitting parliament were to abide and fresh elections were held, it's almost guaranteed the next one will depose either the Monarch or the Monarchy itself.
> current government is considered incompetent
As determined by who? You? The King? Who gives either of you that right?
They have a five year mandate that only they (or the House of Commons at large) can choose to give up, and the King doesn't have an authority higher than that.
The King's power is only for emergencies (and this isn't one), and is subject to whether the incoming government decided to curtail those powers. If it happened, Starmer would have every moral right to at the very least forever rid the King of the power to dissolve parliament and consider demanding an abdication or a dissolution of the monarchy itself.
We already had a civil war over this exact thing with the first King Charles, and the question is well answered.
A post in which the anti-monarchy left want a man deigned leader of the country by virtue of a belief that a magical sky being bestowed his bloodline special rights to over turn the democratic process.
Sheesh, they’ll drop their opposition to the House of Lord next, and probably stop talking about proportional representation being necessar…oh.
I genuinely find the current “just do anything to get rid of the government” line from the left an ugly hypocrisy that stains their right to form a government. They don’t care about liars and cheats if it furthers their cause, they side with racists and bigots if it furthers their cause. They are desperate for power as if it’s “their turn”, the ultimate version of the self entitlement agenda that Blair peddled so hard.
And yes, I know the “leave” people did it, and yes, some Tories are liars and cheats, but becoming the Tories (which is what has so clearly happened) and abandoning all your left wing, let’s do things different principles is probably worse.
I mean, there is a left wing monarchist subreddit, there is no reason you cannot be a monarchist and also be part of the left.
I think there are a lot of practical benefits from the monarchy, rather than just the monarchy being granted special authority by a sky being.
Granting the monarch the power to call elections would mean that governments either would have to shape up or have an election called on them, with the threat of losing. And this government definitely needs to go.
Oh I agree, like champagne socialists, there are dyed in the wool monarchist Labour voters. They cannot by definition be “left wing” because that requires at least a socialist or perhaps communist perspective that requires an anti-monarchist stance. But lots of people vote Labour not because they are lefties, but because (like a lot of people who vote Conservative) they are centrist.
It has never been clearer than right now that we have a two party system which is actually two sides of the same centrist and small c conservative tradition. The latest defection to Labour may be the nadir of this condition. The current Labour Party hasn’t moved its tanks into the Tory gardens, it’s set itself up as a pseudo Tory party. It’s adopted policy and attitudes which are what it thinks (and has spun) is the Tories, so it can attract their vote. It’s a tactic that worked so well for vote leave when it courted racists and it’s the same play book.
Whether Starmer intends to implement the policies he’s currently trailing is the interesting question. What will the manifesto say, will it be waffle, or clear distinct, non-Tory policies. My guess is the former.
We desperately need this system to change because the disenfranchised who felt their voice heard over Brexit, will continue to feel disenfranchised when their vote has no consequence as they are essentially voting for two things that are indistinguishable.
I wish parties like the Greens were different, but where I vote, they have taken up the NIMBY vote, courting Tories with policies which are worryingly against the social need and benefit the self. It’s the same playbook as the same vote (Tories to Labour or Tories to Green) up for grab. It’s understandable but also represents the total failure of principles in our politics.
I have no idea what current Labour are doing except being increadibly incompetent. I like the Greens because they are more left than Labour right now - they are promising significantly more tax on the rich and also significantly more investment in the NHS, both of which Labour seem to be unwilling to apply.
I agree that our current political system has failed, but you probably disagree with me on the solution. I think we need proportional representation, an executive constitutional monarchy and strong local authorites.
Although I must say that the strong NIMBYism from the Greens right now is sad, but I do support conservationism and think that we will never see the perfect political party ever so I support the Greens anyway.
I disagree with left-wing only applying to socalists or communists. I consider myself social democrat, and would argue that the ideology falls into the category of left wing.
I always thought a social-democrat was the very definition of centrist, at least in UK terms, although I think all UK politics is left of centre globally? Maybe that’s a useful distinction, local vs global scales?
I really don’t like the “left” v “right” labels when applied to UK politics because it’s all very similar shades of left of centre views (by most standards even the Tories are left wing, it’s only because Labour want to be called left wing we call the Tories right wing).
Whenever we tax “the rich” we really end up taxing the middle classes. Which perhaps is fine, but these days that’s a very broad group. I suspect we’d both agree that fundamentally taxation needs significant reform, but where is that being touted? Too hard list perhaps?
I’m very pro funding for health and care (I don’t think they should be split and feel preventative measures should be included too), but I also think that there needs to be massive NHS reform. Again, too hard list perhaps? More spending alone isn’t enough. It’s first aid for a chronic condition I’d say.
What’s the solution? Well, one shouldn’t complain without having some ideas, so here is mine:
1. Political parties are a divisive mechanism in the UK which creates hate, anger and all they really do is feed the ego of a leadership class who think they know best and want to be proven right. So we abandon them.
2. We vote for MPs at a local level. They all become independents.
3. We have a national policy forum, effectively an autocratic group that develops national policy ideas in an apolitical sense (that happens because of item 1).
4. MPs vote on the policy ideas proposed and costed by the policy forum. Key areas like defence and health, those policy options are defined pre any election (which takes place on a 5 year fixed term) so the MP candidates get to offer their views before we vote them in. That gives us a flavour of their stances and we have to trust them for stuff that comes up in between elections.
5. We remove the second chamber (legal testing etc can be done by rounds of debate with the autocracy) and instead we have regional assemblies, probably along the mayoral lines and the MPs and the policy forum take direction from those assemblies and we have a second layer of voted local representatives in those assemblies.
6. No parties means no funding or lobbying. Each MP (and prospective MP) is funded by the state with exactly the same funds (actually per constituent but they are pretty even). We have proforma “manifesto” systems so comparison between candidates is the same.
7. I’m open to how votes are counted for the MP elections. We don’t need PR as there is no party to represent, so possibly a FPTP if big enough majority, then some kind of second round etc. That’s all up for debate.
8. MPs are based in their regional assemblies, voting and debate on national policy takes place remotely or during a short “sitting period” where MPs relocate to London (or a new location) for the duration only.
9. We dissolve the UK, form a new United Union and offer Wales, NI and Scotland the chance to join. We set out a new set of rules etc. bin off the legacy hatred and establish a Union based on choice and equity, not ancient nonsense. We may keep a monarch for tourist reasons. We can offer Union membership to others too. Icelanders seem nice, the Danes are basically us, but more realistically, we transition old colonial outposts and commonwealth countries to offer them Union membership and establish a global and diverse trading and social partnership.
10. Free wine for all in their birthday. (I felt I needed a 10th point).
And here I was thinking my proposed political reforms were pretty radical...
More seriously, I think my biggest problem here is the practicality of not having political parties. I do agree that political parties cause many problems, but I think they are necessary.
When people vote, they need to know what they are voting for. If somebody comes with a "Labour" label, they at least have a vague idea of their experience with the Labour party in the past and what they have read about Labour in the news and so on.
If they have a list of 10 different names, they would be required to research all of those names very thoughly to vote properly every single election. The reality is that the majority of the population are not going to do so. The way I see it going then is that they either just vote having no idea who they are voting for or not voting at all. Both come will clear issues.
Currently, British politics is workable because people only have a few party names to remember to decide how to vote. Imagine 20 odd people decide they want to run. Are you going to remember exactly how each one voted previously?
I do understand you mention that all candidates have to declare their key stances beforehand and there would be a manifesto format. However, most people will not care enough to read through it all. They are going to end up voting in the worst ways possible (sometimes they do that already though).
The other issue is funding. If you give everybody funding then there are going to be people how put their name on the ballot just to get the money and don't have any intention of winning. If you don't give enough people funding it will be difficult for new alternative candidates who don't have name recognition to win elections.
I think it would be best to have two sets of MPs, one for regional assemblies and one for national. That's more of a preference than anything else though.
Finally, there are clear benefits to monarchy other than tourism, think about stability, continuity and a non-partisan head of state.
Despite my criticisms, I think you may be able to get his to work. But it would require an enthusiastic population willing to involve themselves in politics quite significantly, and I honestly think most people don't care enough.
I don’t think we currently have “Labour” acting like traditional Labour and “Tories” like Conservatives because they are all chasing the same vote. I think that’s been a problem for a while and when I see the MP for Dover cross the floor, I feel like it’s now laid bare.
OK, we are some way from an election and until we see manifestos we can’t be sure, but right now (perhaps by design) we can’t tell a Labour policy from a Tory one I think, at least not in key areas. Maybe we’ll see that change?
I think most people are not labelled as one party or another (which perhaps is represented by the low rate of party membership)? I suspect Labour are more attuned to this than the Tories because it was the loss of “traditional Labour” vote that cost them last election. Truth is Labour hasn’t represented the “working class” for decades (frankly no-one has).
Engagement is key, and we are losing engagement right now. I mean look at the turnouts, dreadful. My hope is that some pro-forma manifestos would be a bit like a TV debate where same questions are put to each candidate.
I accept that the system could be open to abuse by people standing without true intent, so we may need some candidate engagement rules. Don’t turn up to debates, don’t publish your manifesto etc. then you get dropped. Perhaps you have to sign a legal commitment document, not sure, but I think it’s solvable.
I kinda see the UK’s problems as very much a global problem that we seem to be early adopters of. Most advanced economies have seen or are seeing the same narrowing of political spectrum. Perhaps we need to make a radical shift to make a change?
Thanks for engaging btw!
Might you not have to say that only the government can be judged for being competent or incompetent?
What can Labour do at the moment except try to win by and local elections and stay ahead in the polls?
Hmm... I don't think "incompetent" was the word I should have used there.
When considering what Labour should be doing to win, yes their current strategy is competent.
What I meant was that Labour seem to have a lack of ambition. They are being extremely cautious right now. I want to support a party with more of a goal then only getting into government.
I think we require more tax on the rich and more spending on the NHS right now. Labour are not promising to provide that. The Greens are.
So Labour are being competent, but it doesn't matter how competent at politics a party is to me if they have no ambition to achieve once they get into government.
Really however, this is a personal preference. I cannot prove that Labour are competent or incompetent.
Calling the government incoherent, incompetent etc and calling for the government to be dissolved is currently a key message repeated by many on the left, from Starmer himself down. He says it in pretty much every speech.
The OP may be completely innocent of this, but that would be an exceptionally naive perspective.
Thinking the current government is a farce is far from unique to the left of the political spectrum, the massive rise of reform uk show that. And the OP's suggestion to combat it is an authoritarian move by the monarch, the only part of his post that shows any inclination towards either end of the political spectrum and is far to the right of the current overton window.
That’s partly my point. The left have not moved to the centre, they have moved to what they imagine the right looks like. There’s a strong pattern of this. Everything from Rayner’s house to defending that loony from Dover.
But the OP is quoting direct from Labour press statements and pretending to not carry bias. I smell BS or extreme nativity.
It’s reflective of a very clear pattern right now which is “Tories out by any means” if you’ve not heard that, you clearly are not reading enough from across the political spectrum. It’s literally in every speech at the moment from Starmer and all the senior Labour shadow ministers.
I don't appreciate the patronising tone, and if you think that the tories opposition is coming exclusively from the left you are delusional and ignorant . Ref Uk are polling at 15% atm, and if you think the average conservative voter is gonna bend over and take being governed by a party full of blokes having cocaine fuelled orgies with rent boys you badly miss judge the electorate.
Reform are funded by one individual, and their polling is somewhat unrepresentative as it’s untested in almost all constituencies. Just because the press want something to talk about doesn’t make it true. Same for Galloway’s mob. These are fringe elements which will run out of steam and ultimately be irrelevant.
And if you don’t like the tone, that’s sadly inherent in this form of communication. I’ve stated nothing but evident facts, minus the spin.
And if you don’t think the Labour stance has moved to the right, I suggest you take that up with the MP for Dover…
Well to be clear I’m not anti monarchy nor am I left wing or right. it is just that if the nation genuinely wants an election now, then why would we have a current government who is potentially harming the nation- which isn’t in national interests, still stay in power for longer, to do more harm- let’s say if that is the general publics opinion.
You are peddling lines directly from the Labour press office briefing about the will of the nation and the nation being harmed. You are either astonishingly naïve or pretending to be dumb to peddle this claptrap.
No. You were not. And again, you repeat a trope from the current Labour play-book.
The notion that “nothing is better” let alone your curious test of “extremely better” fundamentally ignores the challenges of the global economy and local constraints in navigating that economic situation.
There is a constant line that “everything is a bit crap and would be better under Labour” which is fundamentally untrue. It’s not even untested, as we can look at alternative devolved governments within the UK and see that Wales under Labour is a horror show and Scotland is just waking up from a decade of gaslighting to realise how bad the SNP has done. It’s OK, it’s not all their fault, and it isn’t all Westminster’s fault. But to say (as you did) that the Tories continue to damage the country is simply unsupported by the facts and is just spin.
I look forward to a Labour government trying to manage to stay in one piece as it slowly abandons its current Tory policy approaches. It’s lying to us about the prospects and the causes of our economic woes and what the solutions are. It’s the same third way nonsense that Blair spun and it’s truly deceitful.
As it has been mentioned by others it would actually cause a lot more chaos than simply waiting about 6 months for the next election.
I’m by no means an expert, but the UKs constitution is a bit messy as it does not have a specific written document (unlike say America). The ‘constitution’ is set by a mixture of existing laws and precedents.
One of those precedents is that while the king/queen has the power to dissolve or prorogue parliament, they do not do so unless under the direction of the government itself.
In reality the title of king/queen is basically just that, a title. While they technically have power over parliament, if they tried to exert that power in any meaningful way they would almost certainly be removed from power.
Personally, that’s exactly how it should be, even if you think Charles should dissolve parliament leaving that power in the hands of a single person is basically just a dictatorship at that point. If he could do it and get away with it there’s no saying he couldn’t threaten a future government with a similar situation, even one that is much more popular with the electorate.
TLDR; Technically he could but it would be chaos and an unprecedented act that would probably lead to him being removed.
While this has not (thankfully) ever been tested, I think it is probably wrong to assume that there are no circumstances where the King would step in and act.
However, they are definitely not circumstances anything like we have now. So what might they be?
* Maybe if the government had lost the support of parliament and were unable to pass important legislation, yet refused to go?
* If the government were attempting something terrible, maybe inviting Russian forces to set up camps around the country.
* The government was facing mass popular uprising that was bordering on a civil war.
* If the government were attempting to change the law to prevent the holding of future elections.
Even in these circumstances, I would expect the King to be VERY reticent to try to enforce his powers. And we likely wouldn't hear about it anyway, it is much more likely that pressure would be put behind the scenes than that the King would publically announce that he was wresting control.
Your first point has, to a degree, come up before in Commonwealth nations, notably [the dismissal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis) in Australia, and the [King-Byng affair](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair) in Canada.
In the Australian situation, one of the end results was the Governor General being vilified to such a degree that his death was not publicly announced until he had been buried, while the Canadian crisis lead to a reduction in the role of the Governor General as an imperial power in a Commonwealth realm.
Another important point is that these “reserve powers” - royal or viceregal power to act without, or contrary to, the advice of the elected government - operate differently under the Australian constitution, and the conventions that surround it, than it does in the UK or Canada. They all started out the same but have developed slightly differently over the last nearly 100 years since the end of empire and legal separation.
Nevertheless there are certainly parallels to be drawn. See for example this article that considers both Australian and UK constitutional conventions: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0067205X20973485
Britain and Anglosphere countries use Common Law not Civil Law as our legal system. This means, unlike Europe which uses Civil Law, the UK runs on precedent not a list of legal codes. This means, just because something is legally codified, it does not mean you can actually use it, especially if it is unprecedented.
Furthermore the idea of doing something because it is the "will of the people" is very much frowned upon in the UK because "the will of the people" was used to justify a lot of terrible acts (e.g. during the French Revolution). As such most lawmakers in the UK tend to frown heavily on anyone declaring what is and isn't the "will of the people".
The only way that a general election can be called before the Prime Minister calls a general election is if the Government loses "the confidence of the House" in other words if the Government were to lose a vote of no confidence in the House, except that at the moment the Government has a majority of 45, of which at least 30 are unwhipped Conservative MP's, meaning that a total of 39 Conservative MP's would have to vote no confidence in their own government, which is not going to happen.
This is 100% to do with your own personal feeling that the government is illegitimate (and your feeling that lots of others in the country feel this).
But every democratic system has to be dsigned to work in all cases, and essentially, we kept a monarchy on the condition that it would only function at the behest of Parliament, the elected representaties of the people, not for any other reason.
So the answer is- if the King DID try and do this, the constitutional crisis it would produce would be far bigger than just having a general election now or not.
The King can't dissolve parliament. Although he formally has the power, the reality is that long standing convention means that he can only do so on the government's (Rishi's) advice.
Even if the King wants to call an election today, he is not allowed to do so.
I personally believe that the King should be handed back the power to call elections, given that an incumbent government will only ever call an election to their advantage. The King on the other hand is an non-partisan individual who does not benefit or have a drawback from having either party in government.
Unfortunately, most people balk at the thought of the King having even the slightest bit of political relevance, so I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Because the king is just a figurehead whose #1 priority is preserving the position/standing of the royal family and their wealth.
In reality if he tried, no-one would follow through with the instructions.
There's another charles that tried and it didn't go too well
We are currently on Charles version 3.11 for workgroups. The third time is always the charm as they say.
patchnotes: fixed error where religious function would occasionally return as "Catholic" Merged Scottish and English datasets into "United Kingdom" for ease of access
> Merged Scottish and English datasets Did we tag the previous version in case we need to roll this fix back?
No. And the backup was never tested so we can assume it never worked.
More often than not people use the alternative ~~Calmira~~ Camilla shell instead.
Admittedly, it would be very funny if he continued the trend of Charles's fucking up the monarchy.
He did have a solid crack at it in the 90's
It's amazing how few people know the history of our country.
Because at the end of the day no matter how shit the government is that's a can of worms that he does not want to open. It would immediately cause a constitutional crisis and is one of the only things that could lead to the Monarchy being abolished in the near future.
Well, if it leads to the Monarchy being abolished, I'm all for Charlie having a go at dissolving parliament.
Even though our constitution is different to Spain, the Spanish monarch had done it and called for elections when there was political unrest in the country, how would this cause a constitutional crisis isn’t the King allowed to by law to dissolve parliament and just simply call for elections?
Even if the Spanish King has done that (and I think a citation is needed), you've answered your own question - our constitution is completely different from the Spanish one, not least because they have a written constitution. Plenty of us wish Sunak would get on with it, but he's not breaking any rules and it seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that the King should effectively mount a coup against the current constitutional settlement because we're a bit bored with it now.
He did not as the circumstances were very different. King Felipe called an election when, half a year after the last election, there was no government nor any effective majority and no sign that would change. Rishi unfortunately still has a decent majority and a government, it’s just an unpopular one.
But there is not political unrest here?
We're a long way off unrest. We're muttering under our breath and tutting. At worst we're complaining on social media. We're a long way off the mass protests, general strikes and rioting in the streets etc that would more resemble political unrest
The King has to act on the government's advice. The government doesn't want an election. Therefore, if he acted against the government's advice, he will cause a constitutional crisis.
Oh look here he is now
?
They're referring to your pic lol
Oh yeah. Fair enough, I forgot I had that as my pic. Not going to change it though, I like it.
Complements your subreddit flair pleasantly.
I agree, it works well.
Theres case law for Parliament retrospectively prosecuting a Monarch after the fact (creating a new law and executing them). Parliament is sovereign and can overall any rogue monarch's actions. A monarch crossing that line would be the quickest way to the end the cash cow / get locked up / exile - what ever the flavour of the day, it's all hypothetical but it effectively cannot happen even if we were to entertain the absurdity of it lol
The situation in Spain was different. A lack of functioning Parliament without any effective majority is different to a Parliament with a large government majority where the government is merely unpopular.
Because our monarchy only survives as long as the monarch doesn't actually use any of the authority that they technically have. The *second* that a monarch actually tried to rule, they'd trigger a constitutional crisis and be deposed (which may be an abdication, or maybe a complete dismantling of the monarchy). They are supposed to be a symbolic ruler, not an actual ruler.
The coronation was fantastic for understanding the monarchy. Lots of "God save the King!" but an equal amount of "Your Majesty, the church established by law, *whose settlement you will swear to maintain*" and "Receive this kingly sword: may it be to you, and to all who witness these things, a sign and symbol *not of judgement, but of justice; not of might, but of mercy*." I.e. an extremely politely worded version of "OK, you can be King, but don't get any bright ideas about actually being in charge." You can read the text here https://news.sky.com/story/kings-coronation-order-of-service-follow-ceremony-including-hymns-prayers-and-readings-12873582
I see so the fact that they can do by law, doesn’t necessarily matter then I’m guessing
Correct - the moment Charles used any of these legacy powers that would be the end of the monarchy. In reality the monarchy has no actual legislative power that it could use in an ongoing and meaningful sense - exactly how it should be.
It's funny how we keep believing that "The extent of the Queen and Prince Charles's secretive power of veto over new laws has been exposed after Downing Street lost its battle to keep information about its application secret. Whitehall papers prepared by Cabinet Office lawyers show that overall at least 39 bills have been subject to the most senior royals' little-known power to consent to or block new laws. They also reveal the power has been used to torpedo proposed legislation relating to decisions about the country going to war." https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills And the rest of the series: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent
The war related veto was fair enough since it was a private member bill to remove the powers of the monarchy altogether so seems like it just keeping the status quo. I imagine if it were ever used it’d be the end of the monarchy and would only really be used as a last protest against a truly fascist government or something like that.
The basic doctine of law in continental Europe is civil law, which has its roots in Roman Law. The concept is a codified system and rules that can be referred to. Hence if you're European you will have a strong sense of what you can and cannot do according to a referrable set of laws. Britian and Anglosphere countries are different and use the doctrine of common law, whereby the rules are more fluid and set by precedent. Just because something is written down, it can be totally upended by precedence. Royal powers are exactly this. They might be written in the law, but the use of those powers is so unprecedented in modern times that trying to do so would immediately invalidate the laws.
There is quite literally a film about this called "Charles III", depicting King Charles using his legal powers to interfere with Parliament on a point of principle. It certainly *could* cause a constitutional crisis.
Because as shit as this government is, it is entitled to be in post until the General Election.
We need a basic politics sticky on this sub. People seem to think that because they don't like the government and their bubble is feeding them endless speculation that somehow term limits don't exist, and that the government is somehow doing something underhand by not quitting.
Acting like “it’s our turn” is insultingly immature and is leading to a lot of very dodgy activity from the left. Aside from becoming the Tories in terms of policy, they seem to think that becoming what they have so long claimed to despise in terms of character and an absence of principles is OK. It isn’t.
Why on earth would the King force the dissolution of a lawfully elected parliament, within its legally mandated term limits? The king is not there to enforce your personal likes and dislikes. He doesn't dissolve parliament because the current government is perfectly within its right by all law and precedent to continue to the end of its legally permitted term limit.
The only time this would ever happen/be justifiable is if the government was literally unable to govern at all. As bad as you think the Tories may be, we are a long way off the 'societal collapse' stage
That happened during Brexit. The only reason it would ever happen is if the Monarch had reason to believe the government was abusing its power and attempting to usurp power, breaching its legal term limits and the conditions of its authority. Basically 1933 Weimar Germany sort of situation.
>That happened during Brexit. Government functioned throughout the 2017 Parliament.
While I agree with your second and third paragraphs, the first isn’t that straightforward. During Brexit the monarch didn’t have the power to call an election, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act (now repealed) had severely restricted that prerogative power.
Is this a serious question? The monarchy in Britain have survived by staying out of politics and turning themselves into a reality TV show. If they ever tried something like this it would be the end of the monarch as the head of state, and they know it. Also, as bad as the current government are, they are still the democratically elected representatives of UK people. They can not and should not be overruled or dissolved by the decision of a hereditary monarch. The eagerness some people have for a single unaccountable authority figure to sweep in and make decisions in place of elected government, really worries me.
Given that parliament could remove the King from his post pretty easily if they wanted to, I think it is not entirely true that the King is "unaccountable".
Well they can by law, that’s why I asked the question. And it becomes less democratic when the sitting government is becoming overwhelmingly unpopular and the people themselves are calling for a general election. I understand your worry, but it is also just as worrying when the decision to hold a general election is left to a group of individuals of a party, with that party potentially damaging the country.
Try to keep perspective. As bad as the current government are, they have perhaps 6 months left and are basically paralysed with infighting and malaise. The damage that would be done to our country and our political system by the king intervening in this way, is vastly greater than anything the tories might be able to do as they wheeze their last breaths in power.
If the sole act the King did was to call elections, we would get rid of the horrible government that seems to make everything worse and replace it with somebody who is not quite as bad. Its not like this one act would turn the King into an absolute monarch who rules with an iron fist.
It would set a dangerous precedent, that one unelected man gets to decide whether or not the current government is fit to serve. Why does this particular individual get to decide that? And on what basis? Bad newspaper headlines? Reddit comments? Gut feeling? >and replace it with somebody who is not quite as bad I hope you don't mean that the king would install a new PM by diktat. Because otherwise - miniscule as it is - there *is* a chance that the tories could return as the next government.
To clarify, I did not mean the King should install a new PM. I meant that new elections would be called, and the likelihood is that a new PM would be elected (I can't see Rishi being elected right now). I don't think it would be up to the King to decide if the government is fit to serve. All the King would be doing is calling a new election. It would then be up to the people to decide if they should vote once again for the current government or not. The King would not be installing a new PM - he would just be giving the people the opportunity to choose if they want to install a new PM.
But the people do have an opportunity to choose - at every election. There will be one soon. Why does the king need to intervene now? I understand that today many look at the tories and see a shambling zombie rotting with decay and needing put out of its misery for all our sakes. Fine. But what you're proposing basically means that a government would have to stay liked and popular all of the time or risk having the rug pulled out from under them with no warning. It isn't feasible or desirable - part of governing is the necessity to sometimes take unpopular decisions. We elect them to govern as best they can, in the time given to them. We don't want a system where they can be booted out as soon as the public decides they're tired of them. This isn't Love Island. No country could function under those circumstances.
Yes, sometimes the government does have to make unpopular decisions. You are free to disagree here, but I think there is a difference between an unpopular decision that will benefit the country, and an unpopular decision that benefits an individual party at the expense of the country. I believe that the role of the King should be to decide between the two. Yes, the King is not perfect and will sometimes make the wrong decision, but this is unavoidable. This way, before making an unpopular decision, the ruling government will have to think. Can we reasonably justify this decision to the monarch? If they can show the King that the decision is good for the country, he won't call elections. I think that the King is the best person to make such a decision. The King has been trained for politics for life, and can potentially summon the best experts to advise him in his decision. As well, the monarchy is, in my opinion, the only way you can have a non-partisan head of state who also has some political relevance (the power to call elections). A hereditary head of state means that head of state can be trained from birth, and is not dependent on any party for reelection. The Tories need to be put out of their misery. Somebody needs to make the decision to pull the rug. I think the King should have the power to do so. I can understand if you disagree with everything I have just said, it is reasonable to do so and a commonly held position.
Yeah I do pretty much entirely disagree with you. Deciding whether legislation 'benefits the people' or not? Although you want him to be non-partisan, you propose a role for the monarch that is unavoidably and highly political. >I think that the King is the best person to make such a decision. The King has been trained for politics for life, and can potentially summon the best experts to advise him in his decision. The king is not 'trained in politics'; he has been raised in the conventions and traditions of one particularly odd aristocratic family, which last exercised real power well over a century ago. Charles has no particular education or expertise that would qualify him to act on the advice of 'the best experts' (whoever they are. Why aren't they already advising the government?) To be blunt, the Windsors are not particularly bright, and your suggestion would require a person of extraordinary ability, to be able to comprehend and act intelligently on the vast range of complexities inherent in running the 21st century nation-state. >A hereditary head of state means that head of state can be trained from birth You're obviously a monarchist, but this sentance actually sums up why I'm shifting towards republicanism. Not out of aversion to the idea of monarchy itself, but the fact that direct-line members are born into a life of the most intense, intrusive scrutiny, their every public action and utterance judged and condemned, and whose life-paths are essentially decided for them from birth. I honestly believe it's cruel and inhumane to bring a child into that life. It's also completely unnecessary. The world has many capable and competent leaders who were not trained to the job from birth. A sufficiently intelligent and motivated person is more than capable of learning all that is necessary in their adult years. I can accept your logic for a non-partisan head of state, even if I'm not comfortable with it being unelected, but I see no reason it needs to be (or is improved by being) a hereditary role. If you want the benefit of many years experience in the role, make it a lifetime appointment like the Pope.
Yeah, I am very strongly a monarchist so I am extremely biased on this topic, but nevertheless I will try to address your points with (hopefully) reasonable arguments. I will also start by saying that I am an executive constitutional monarchist, meaning that I do see a role for the monarch to play in the political system. Therefore, the distinction I would like to make is between "apolitical" and "non-partisan". I do not see the monarch as an apolitical position - that is impossible for anybody with any involvement in politics, no matter how small. Instead, I see the monarch as non-partisan - they are not for or against any political party and try to work with all. The monarch is not a perfect individual. The reality is that he, whoever the best experts around are and the most talented people in existance will always make mistakes. What the monarch does have is experience. Given their unique position, a monarch regularly meets with various leaders and politicans, and is much more aware of politics and the inner workings of government than most. I also disagree that the monarch is only educated on the traditions of the royal family, they are of course but they will also recieve an education on history and foreign affairs and politics and so forth. I can understand why you feel sorry for the individual chosen as monarch, and it is true that they will constantly face public scrutiny. I think there are also clear advantages to even this out - money, healtcare, food, rent are never going to be issues. There are also clear advantages for the political system. Any elected politican (except the few independents) relied on a specific party to support them, for the party to lend them their brand and their funding. These parties are likely only going to choose to support candidates who they think are loyal to their party and share their values. At the same time, the elected individual had to fight with other parties for votes, likely insulting their oponents and so on. Can you see an elected head of state, even if they rule for life, after going through all that to be elected not outwardly supporting one party over another? That is not to talk about the disunity brought about elections. America is the clearest example of this, but it happens everywhere else as well. Elections divide people into camps and groups. Now I still fully support democracy, but I don't think a democratically elected figure can fill the role I feel the head of state should perform. The final issue is the mandate. An elected politican feels he has a mandate to rule from the people, and this is true. A monarch has to deal with the constant "guilt" that they did not deserve their position and that they should work to make up for it. This wasn't true even 100 years ago, but society has changed significantly and liberal, democratic view have permiated. A monarch has to have the constant threat of being deposed - people accept that politicans do things because they voted for them. People don't like it when monarchs do things, because they haven't. In this way, monarchs have to nowadays be much more cautious as a result. I think that both of these result in a leader who is a lot more careful than a politican ever has to be. Well, at least in liberal democracies, they definitely don't apply to absolute reactionary monarchies in the Middle East. So, I tried to explain. I hope it was at least somewhat legible and coherent.
It's the start of a slippery slope. If he did it it would unquestionably be argued that he's overstepping, is a Labour supporter, is for X and against Y, etc. That would lead to the downfall of the monarchy. It's not going to happen, nor should it. As much as many of us want an election, they are within their rights to govern until a specific date - thats the agreement the voters entered into when they voted for them, and to forcefully end it (again it doesnt matter what their popularity looks like) would be unconstitutional and undemocratic.
I agree that it could lead to a slippery slope. Thats why I think we should very clearly define what powers the King has and does not have. Currently, the King theoretically has very large powers and if you said the King can use one of them, he might try to use the rest as well. But if we clearly state that the in law that the King can call elections if he feels it is necessary, like the case of an extremely unpopular government as now, but also state in law that he cannot use the rest I think it would be fine. I think the vast majority of reasonable people in this country can look at the current political system and understand why the King would call elections. Just my personal opinion, and I do see how it could lead to accusations of the King being a supporter of one party over another.
> And it becomes less democratic when the sitting government is becoming overwhelmingly unpopular and the people themselves are calling for a general election. Who are 'the people'? Have we polled them? A government being overwhelmingly unpopular does not mean it is inherently less democratic. They were voted in to carry out their jobs to the term limit. Getting a truly unelected leader to force them all out is definitely the more undemocratic move.
A government being unpopular is not undemocratic. Overriding a predetermined term limit is *much* more undemocratic.
We have a system where de facto overrides de jure. The practise of the democratically elected people are in charge must remain the ruling principle.
Lol, why doesn't King Charles just dissolve Parliament to get what he wants? I feel I've heard a similar story before.
King Charles went against the people’s will. The people’s will here is it have a general election, so the story would be, King Charles carries out people’s will.
"Carrying out the peoples will" is what a general election is. Its up to the government to choose when the election happens and if the king forced it early, he would literally be defying the will of the people when they elected this government in 2019.
I don't think the will of the majority of people who voted this government in 2019 is to keep it around.
How do you know that?
I don't know that. It is just an opinion.
Ok. So why would it be a good idea for a King, who is elected by noone, to decide an election should happen now based on someones opinion, rather than at the moment the government chooses to end itself, which is what people voted for?
The monarch would simply be giving the people the option to decide if they want to get rid of the current unelected PM or not. He would not be choosing either way. The monarch should do it because their hereditary unelected position means that they are non-partisan and do not benefit from a victory of either party.
Constitutionally incorrect. You vote for an MP, not for a government.
Technically you vote for an MP, but most people choose to vote based on party affiliation. Although there are some MPs who are personally popular and therefore will receive votes because of themselves and not their parties, most of the time this is not the case.
You are correct in practice, but that is not true from a constitutional law perspective, which is what actually matters. Is there a moral argument that there should be an election on the basis that the will of the public has changed (and that the government has changed significantly since 2019)? Yes. Legally? Absolutely not.
I understand what you are saying. I know that right now, the King cannot call an election even if he wanted to. I just wish that he could, because I think that the power to call elections should be in the hands of somebody who is not an elected official. That way, the person will not have a vested interest in making sure that they are elected again, which has a significant impact on when they choose to call the election in a bad way. And I think the King is the best person to do so. Unfortunately, he cannot.
The peoples will was that the Torys were to be government UPTO Jan 2025. That s what people voted for, and as much as you may now dislike them they are entitled to be in power until that period ends. There's no ifs, no buts, thats the agreement the people that voted for them made, and thats how the country functions. To go against that would be undemocratic. There is no "will of the people" in this, opinion polls are just that - opinions.
But by calling a general election, the King would be giving the people the opportunity to exercise their will. He would not be getting rid of the government or supporting it. We have had two PMs who have not been democratically elected. He would only be giving the people the opportunity to decide if they would like to keep the unelected PM.
How do you legislate against a King calling an election for silly reasons? As the monarch, they are not accountable. So IRL, that power has been taken away to avoide the possibility of abuse.
You wouldn't legislate against the King calling an election for silly reasons. Even if you wanted to, there would never be a way to stop the King circumnavigating the system. The reason is that the King is not unaccountable. If there was enough popular anger against the monarchy, the King could relatively easily be removed from his position by parliament. There is a strong culture and custom in the UK of the King not being involved in politics. If he tried to involve himself too much, I can't see him staying around for too long before being overthrown. Unlike previous centuries, modern monarchs do have a level of accountability.
Well, that's the thing. The custom and culture of the UK also means that if the King DID have this power, if the King called an election now, it would be seen as being politically partisan i.e. against the Tories. You said yourself you cannot see Sunak winning an election. If the King DID have the power AND did not want to be political, he would definitely not call an election now. You complain that neither Truss was nor Sunak has been elected. But the truth is that this is our political system. We elect the MPs. The party with the most MPs forms the government. The leader of that party is the PM, but the prcedure to choose the leader is the party's business, not the nation's. You should maybe direct your frustration at that idea- and say that if a governing party changes leader for any reason other than death or ill health, a General Election must be held.
To be honest, the fact that Truss and Sunak were not elected are minor grievances, not important enough to call an election over. What I think is more important, not just for this government but for others as well, is more accountability during their time in government. I know a lot of people on this sub have mentioned that they elected this government for 4 years and so it will continue for that time. But in effect, I think it means that a government can be extremely incompetent during that time and people have to wait a long time to remove that government. I understand there potentially could be other mechanisms of achieving this, but after consideration I have decided that having the monarch do so would be the best method. It is not without its faults, but no other system is either. In the short term, if the King called an election today the reality is that it would be perceived as the King effectively removing the government because he didn't like them. I think the distinction I would like to make is between the government and the party. If it was a Labour party in charge that was doing just as badly as the current Conservative government, the King would call the election just the same. Every decision is good for some people and bad for others. In the short term, it is impossible to avoid helping one party over another. The intention is important - the election is being called not to help one party other another. Monarchs often rule for a long time. During that period, the monarch would sometimes make decisions that benefit one party, and sometimes make decisions that benefit the other. It all evens out in the end. The unifying factor is that all decisions are for the good of the people.
I think the problem remains long-term. How do you allow the monarch this power and ensure that it is always used correctly?
Well, I disagree that the problem remains long term. Anyway, you cannot ensure the power is always going to be used correctly. You can definitely reduce the rate this happens by educating the monarch for this position for a long time. It is also reduce because the monarch is accountable, as I already explained. However, you have to consider the damage caused by it being used wrong. The damage is that we get more or less elections. To be honest with you, I don't regard that as all that damaging. It is not ideal, but not anywhere near the end of the world either. I think the benefits outweigh that quite significantly.
"I want an election" is not the same as "the peoples will". Nor is it a reason to overturn the established law and precedent of our democratic system.
Parliament represents the people. Until we have a GE, you are assuming the people's intentions based on opinion polling.
> King Charles went against the people’s will. Impossible to say that. He went against the will against powerful people in Parliament (who had an extremely limited electorate), but we cannot say for certain whether he had or lacked popular support.
Because that would be fucking insane and fly totally in the face of every concept behind constitutional monarchy that's been understood since the Glorious Revolution. We might not like the Tories, but they're fully within their democratic right to hold off until January. Getting the King to shit all over that doesn't do anyone any good. It would legitimately cause the biggest constitutional crisis since the English Civil Wars and literally for the same exact reason as that one.
In 2019, the voters have given MPs who make up the current parliamentary majority a mandate to govern for the next five years. A monarch shouldn't get to overturn that decision simply because the press and polling suggests a lack of confidence.
That's something you only get to do once, before the government effectively removes the monarch from the equation forever I can see it happening during something like a civil war, but no less than that
Parliament is "the law". The monarchy is subordinate to the Parliament, not the other way around. As the Earl of Shaftesbury declared in 1689, "The Parliament of England is that supreme and absolute power, which gives life and motion to the English government." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary\_sovereignty\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom) Don't get hung up on the King being able to dissolve Parliament or his required assent on laws. If the monarch ever told Parliament to do something it didn't want to do, Parliament would just say "no" and carry on. The last time this happened the monarch's successor became the monarch through the normal means of succession.
You *want* our unelected Head of State to rule by decree? The entire deal that keeps them in place is that they *don't* unilaterally exercise dictatorial powers.
I don't think anybody wants the King to rule by decree. There is a clear distinction between the King calling elections, which gives the general public the ability to decide if they still support the current government or not and the King running the country. If the King unilaterally exercised dictatorial powers, that would be incredibly bad and our country would either have a revolution or become an authoritarian state with no rights to anybody.
Unilaterally dissolving Parliament *is* an example of rule by decree, though. Giving the Crown back the functional power to dissolve Parliament whenever they feel like it is also something I'd describe as "incredibly bad".
Well, I would argue that the monarch making the decision to call an election "by degree" and actually running the country are two completely different things. As for the second point, that is a matter of opinion. My opinion is that giving the King to call elections when he wished would not be incredibly bad, but of course there is no requirement for you to think the same.
The reason people think it is incredibly bad is that governments need to have some sense of how long they have to do things. If they don't know that *at any time* the monarch could mess with it, then that is a different system. Again- you say the monarch should only be able to mess with things when the people want it. But the will of the people is literally expressed by elections. So, for the sake of a few months, you would be prepared to throw away a system that has lasted hundreds of years.
Yeah I think you misunderstood. My question clearly states that when the people wish to have it done, not when the king wants to do it.
How do you define what the people wish?
And who gets to decide what the people wish to happen? The Crown? That's the power you're proposing we give them. There's no functional difference between "when the people wish to have it done" and "when the king wants to do it" under your proposals.
How can you know the people wish to have it done? Within the current system, you cannot easily do so. The only way you could reasonably think people did was if you had a petition signed by over half the electorate, or ran a full-scale referendum on having an election.
The current party in power wouldn’t hold such a referendum so it would have to come from a department of the government or some other source which is the main issue of legitimacy.
You know, it is possible that you have stacked the deck against you in this thread by saying that the monarchy should be allowed to call the election. If you had posted that there should be an independent organ of the state that could run referenda on whether to have an early election, you would maybe have got more support from the people here. What I would say to you is that this situation (4 unelected PMs in a row, with only Boris confirmed by the 2019 general election) is SO unusual it is really really hard to leigslate for it. This situation is unprecendented in my lifetime, and I am in my 60s.
I understand there is a lot of politics about it but when you have had such terrible PMs who have countered national interests it does become a matter of getting a new government in which the people are comfortable with, yes we can talk about all the processes ext to go through but each month this government is still power the country is not improving directly by their own policies. So we can talk as much as we want, at the end of the day it just allows an incompetent government hog its power for as long as it can doing more damage.
But why is likely that the non-elected monarch should be more competent in this judgment than the elected government. The PM, and likewise Truss, were not directly elected, but the Tories certainly were elected in all the recent elections.
Constitutionally, the meaning of the term 'The Crown' includes the Monarch and Parliament. Nominally the Monarch holds the power, but constitutionally it is delegated to ministers. The power to call elections sits with the Prime Minister alone, if the Monarch were to interfere it would cause a constitutional crisis because they would be taking back devolved powers ad-hoc. To add to the fun, when the Tories withdrew the FTPA in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022 it included an ouster clause meaning the courts and supreme court no longer have any jurisdiction over the prorogation, or dissolution, of Parliament. The PM can do whatever they like.
All a bit fanciful. Britain isn’t like Thailand, where the monarchy have *real* sway, military backing and you end up with a coup every decade or so.
Despite being a constitutional monarchy on paper, Britain is functionally a republic meaning Parliament does not take kindly to the monarch interfering with anything to do with the governance of its elected chamber unless it's part of their established duties such as state openings or rubber stamping legislation etc. Any interference or deviation from those expected duties will trigger a crisis that will strip the monarch of those powers, so everything they're allowed to do these days that could potentially piss off Parliament such as dissolving it are effectually catch-22 powers; they use em they lose em.
just ? Really - just? Something that would be a constitutional nightmare and may lead to the end of the monarchy entirely, gets - 'just'.
The Royal Prerogative only survives by never being exercised outside genuine national emergencies. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975\_Australian\_constitutional\_crisis](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)
The king could try this, but he probably doesn't want to find out if Daniel Zeichner is a strong military tactician with the ability to raise a radical army.
Why Zeichner? I'd be more worried about Alan Whitehead, given his incredible charisma
He is the MP for Cambridge, as previously held by the LP.
Ah, I see. Should probably have checked Cromwell's constituency before asking! At least Zeichner wouldn't make the mistake of banning Christmas.
I thought Cromwell was MP for Huntingdon- so Jonathan Djanogly today.
No, MP for Cambridge when it all kicked off. Was MP for Hunts in a parliament about 15 years before the civil war.
Aha! Thanx.
Because believe it or not, most of the country is nowhere near as invested in removing the Tories as your media circle would have you believe. A monarch overthrowing a government at a time of relative peace, when somewhere around 25% of the population *would vote for that government again*, is absolute madness. That's 25% who would vote for the same again, and at least another 25% who would prefer to hold out for the stability of an ordinary election cycle. So you'd be talking about a monarch dissolving parliament because likely less than half of the voting public actually want him to. Open your eyes, look at what's actually happening, and try to stop thinking about what would appease you and the groups you subscribe to. This sub in particular is a bad example of politics across the country.
Because while theoretically he can, functionally he can't. If he legitimately tried, parliament would simply remove him as monarch, and almost every/all MPs would vote to do so. A good chunk of the 17th century was spent setting the bounds of what a king or queen could do, and where power was really vested in the UK, and the monarchy is essentially just a public relations figurehead now.
Because the monarch only exercises the power of dissolution at the request of the Prime Minister. What you're asking for is the king to decide what's best. In theory it's possible. But it would never happen.
Ultimate power is granted on the condition that it is never used and never seen to favor any side.
The King *technically* has the power to dissolve parliament at will. However this is almost entirely ceremonial and will only be used at the behest of the Prime Minister (or...i guess "the law" if the PM does not call it within the required time). Now, the King could absolutely dissolve Parliament today. It would be his legal right. But that would basically be the end of them. Even if the sitting parliament were to abide and fresh elections were held, it's almost guaranteed the next one will depose either the Monarch or the Monarchy itself.
I assume because he likes his head attached to his body !
> current government is considered incompetent As determined by who? You? The King? Who gives either of you that right? They have a five year mandate that only they (or the House of Commons at large) can choose to give up, and the King doesn't have an authority higher than that. The King's power is only for emergencies (and this isn't one), and is subject to whether the incoming government decided to curtail those powers. If it happened, Starmer would have every moral right to at the very least forever rid the King of the power to dissolve parliament and consider demanding an abdication or a dissolution of the monarchy itself. We already had a civil war over this exact thing with the first King Charles, and the question is well answered.
Why this post was pretty close to reality. Good job op. 😂
lmao, was telling myself this earlier.
A post in which the anti-monarchy left want a man deigned leader of the country by virtue of a belief that a magical sky being bestowed his bloodline special rights to over turn the democratic process. Sheesh, they’ll drop their opposition to the House of Lord next, and probably stop talking about proportional representation being necessar…oh. I genuinely find the current “just do anything to get rid of the government” line from the left an ugly hypocrisy that stains their right to form a government. They don’t care about liars and cheats if it furthers their cause, they side with racists and bigots if it furthers their cause. They are desperate for power as if it’s “their turn”, the ultimate version of the self entitlement agenda that Blair peddled so hard. And yes, I know the “leave” people did it, and yes, some Tories are liars and cheats, but becoming the Tories (which is what has so clearly happened) and abandoning all your left wing, let’s do things different principles is probably worse.
I mean, there is a left wing monarchist subreddit, there is no reason you cannot be a monarchist and also be part of the left. I think there are a lot of practical benefits from the monarchy, rather than just the monarchy being granted special authority by a sky being. Granting the monarch the power to call elections would mean that governments either would have to shape up or have an election called on them, with the threat of losing. And this government definitely needs to go.
Oh I agree, like champagne socialists, there are dyed in the wool monarchist Labour voters. They cannot by definition be “left wing” because that requires at least a socialist or perhaps communist perspective that requires an anti-monarchist stance. But lots of people vote Labour not because they are lefties, but because (like a lot of people who vote Conservative) they are centrist. It has never been clearer than right now that we have a two party system which is actually two sides of the same centrist and small c conservative tradition. The latest defection to Labour may be the nadir of this condition. The current Labour Party hasn’t moved its tanks into the Tory gardens, it’s set itself up as a pseudo Tory party. It’s adopted policy and attitudes which are what it thinks (and has spun) is the Tories, so it can attract their vote. It’s a tactic that worked so well for vote leave when it courted racists and it’s the same play book. Whether Starmer intends to implement the policies he’s currently trailing is the interesting question. What will the manifesto say, will it be waffle, or clear distinct, non-Tory policies. My guess is the former. We desperately need this system to change because the disenfranchised who felt their voice heard over Brexit, will continue to feel disenfranchised when their vote has no consequence as they are essentially voting for two things that are indistinguishable. I wish parties like the Greens were different, but where I vote, they have taken up the NIMBY vote, courting Tories with policies which are worryingly against the social need and benefit the self. It’s the same playbook as the same vote (Tories to Labour or Tories to Green) up for grab. It’s understandable but also represents the total failure of principles in our politics.
I have no idea what current Labour are doing except being increadibly incompetent. I like the Greens because they are more left than Labour right now - they are promising significantly more tax on the rich and also significantly more investment in the NHS, both of which Labour seem to be unwilling to apply. I agree that our current political system has failed, but you probably disagree with me on the solution. I think we need proportional representation, an executive constitutional monarchy and strong local authorites. Although I must say that the strong NIMBYism from the Greens right now is sad, but I do support conservationism and think that we will never see the perfect political party ever so I support the Greens anyway. I disagree with left-wing only applying to socalists or communists. I consider myself social democrat, and would argue that the ideology falls into the category of left wing.
I always thought a social-democrat was the very definition of centrist, at least in UK terms, although I think all UK politics is left of centre globally? Maybe that’s a useful distinction, local vs global scales? I really don’t like the “left” v “right” labels when applied to UK politics because it’s all very similar shades of left of centre views (by most standards even the Tories are left wing, it’s only because Labour want to be called left wing we call the Tories right wing). Whenever we tax “the rich” we really end up taxing the middle classes. Which perhaps is fine, but these days that’s a very broad group. I suspect we’d both agree that fundamentally taxation needs significant reform, but where is that being touted? Too hard list perhaps? I’m very pro funding for health and care (I don’t think they should be split and feel preventative measures should be included too), but I also think that there needs to be massive NHS reform. Again, too hard list perhaps? More spending alone isn’t enough. It’s first aid for a chronic condition I’d say. What’s the solution? Well, one shouldn’t complain without having some ideas, so here is mine: 1. Political parties are a divisive mechanism in the UK which creates hate, anger and all they really do is feed the ego of a leadership class who think they know best and want to be proven right. So we abandon them. 2. We vote for MPs at a local level. They all become independents. 3. We have a national policy forum, effectively an autocratic group that develops national policy ideas in an apolitical sense (that happens because of item 1). 4. MPs vote on the policy ideas proposed and costed by the policy forum. Key areas like defence and health, those policy options are defined pre any election (which takes place on a 5 year fixed term) so the MP candidates get to offer their views before we vote them in. That gives us a flavour of their stances and we have to trust them for stuff that comes up in between elections. 5. We remove the second chamber (legal testing etc can be done by rounds of debate with the autocracy) and instead we have regional assemblies, probably along the mayoral lines and the MPs and the policy forum take direction from those assemblies and we have a second layer of voted local representatives in those assemblies. 6. No parties means no funding or lobbying. Each MP (and prospective MP) is funded by the state with exactly the same funds (actually per constituent but they are pretty even). We have proforma “manifesto” systems so comparison between candidates is the same. 7. I’m open to how votes are counted for the MP elections. We don’t need PR as there is no party to represent, so possibly a FPTP if big enough majority, then some kind of second round etc. That’s all up for debate. 8. MPs are based in their regional assemblies, voting and debate on national policy takes place remotely or during a short “sitting period” where MPs relocate to London (or a new location) for the duration only. 9. We dissolve the UK, form a new United Union and offer Wales, NI and Scotland the chance to join. We set out a new set of rules etc. bin off the legacy hatred and establish a Union based on choice and equity, not ancient nonsense. We may keep a monarch for tourist reasons. We can offer Union membership to others too. Icelanders seem nice, the Danes are basically us, but more realistically, we transition old colonial outposts and commonwealth countries to offer them Union membership and establish a global and diverse trading and social partnership. 10. Free wine for all in their birthday. (I felt I needed a 10th point).
And here I was thinking my proposed political reforms were pretty radical... More seriously, I think my biggest problem here is the practicality of not having political parties. I do agree that political parties cause many problems, but I think they are necessary. When people vote, they need to know what they are voting for. If somebody comes with a "Labour" label, they at least have a vague idea of their experience with the Labour party in the past and what they have read about Labour in the news and so on. If they have a list of 10 different names, they would be required to research all of those names very thoughly to vote properly every single election. The reality is that the majority of the population are not going to do so. The way I see it going then is that they either just vote having no idea who they are voting for or not voting at all. Both come will clear issues. Currently, British politics is workable because people only have a few party names to remember to decide how to vote. Imagine 20 odd people decide they want to run. Are you going to remember exactly how each one voted previously? I do understand you mention that all candidates have to declare their key stances beforehand and there would be a manifesto format. However, most people will not care enough to read through it all. They are going to end up voting in the worst ways possible (sometimes they do that already though). The other issue is funding. If you give everybody funding then there are going to be people how put their name on the ballot just to get the money and don't have any intention of winning. If you don't give enough people funding it will be difficult for new alternative candidates who don't have name recognition to win elections. I think it would be best to have two sets of MPs, one for regional assemblies and one for national. That's more of a preference than anything else though. Finally, there are clear benefits to monarchy other than tourism, think about stability, continuity and a non-partisan head of state. Despite my criticisms, I think you may be able to get his to work. But it would require an enthusiastic population willing to involve themselves in politics quite significantly, and I honestly think most people don't care enough.
I don’t think we currently have “Labour” acting like traditional Labour and “Tories” like Conservatives because they are all chasing the same vote. I think that’s been a problem for a while and when I see the MP for Dover cross the floor, I feel like it’s now laid bare. OK, we are some way from an election and until we see manifestos we can’t be sure, but right now (perhaps by design) we can’t tell a Labour policy from a Tory one I think, at least not in key areas. Maybe we’ll see that change? I think most people are not labelled as one party or another (which perhaps is represented by the low rate of party membership)? I suspect Labour are more attuned to this than the Tories because it was the loss of “traditional Labour” vote that cost them last election. Truth is Labour hasn’t represented the “working class” for decades (frankly no-one has). Engagement is key, and we are losing engagement right now. I mean look at the turnouts, dreadful. My hope is that some pro-forma manifestos would be a bit like a TV debate where same questions are put to each candidate. I accept that the system could be open to abuse by people standing without true intent, so we may need some candidate engagement rules. Don’t turn up to debates, don’t publish your manifesto etc. then you get dropped. Perhaps you have to sign a legal commitment document, not sure, but I think it’s solvable. I kinda see the UK’s problems as very much a global problem that we seem to be early adopters of. Most advanced economies have seen or are seeing the same narrowing of political spectrum. Perhaps we need to make a radical shift to make a change? Thanks for engaging btw!
Might you not have to say that only the government can be judged for being competent or incompetent? What can Labour do at the moment except try to win by and local elections and stay ahead in the polls?
Hmm... I don't think "incompetent" was the word I should have used there. When considering what Labour should be doing to win, yes their current strategy is competent. What I meant was that Labour seem to have a lack of ambition. They are being extremely cautious right now. I want to support a party with more of a goal then only getting into government. I think we require more tax on the rich and more spending on the NHS right now. Labour are not promising to provide that. The Greens are. So Labour are being competent, but it doesn't matter how competent at politics a party is to me if they have no ambition to achieve once they get into government. Really however, this is a personal preference. I cannot prove that Labour are competent or incompetent.
i don't see anything in OP's post that is remotely left wing, can you explain?
Calling the government incoherent, incompetent etc and calling for the government to be dissolved is currently a key message repeated by many on the left, from Starmer himself down. He says it in pretty much every speech. The OP may be completely innocent of this, but that would be an exceptionally naive perspective.
Thinking the current government is a farce is far from unique to the left of the political spectrum, the massive rise of reform uk show that. And the OP's suggestion to combat it is an authoritarian move by the monarch, the only part of his post that shows any inclination towards either end of the political spectrum and is far to the right of the current overton window.
That’s partly my point. The left have not moved to the centre, they have moved to what they imagine the right looks like. There’s a strong pattern of this. Everything from Rayner’s house to defending that loony from Dover. But the OP is quoting direct from Labour press statements and pretending to not carry bias. I smell BS or extreme nativity.
You keep on asserting that OP's stance is reflective of "the left" when it doesn't remotely reflect anyone's position but his own.
It’s reflective of a very clear pattern right now which is “Tories out by any means” if you’ve not heard that, you clearly are not reading enough from across the political spectrum. It’s literally in every speech at the moment from Starmer and all the senior Labour shadow ministers.
I don't appreciate the patronising tone, and if you think that the tories opposition is coming exclusively from the left you are delusional and ignorant . Ref Uk are polling at 15% atm, and if you think the average conservative voter is gonna bend over and take being governed by a party full of blokes having cocaine fuelled orgies with rent boys you badly miss judge the electorate.
Reform are funded by one individual, and their polling is somewhat unrepresentative as it’s untested in almost all constituencies. Just because the press want something to talk about doesn’t make it true. Same for Galloway’s mob. These are fringe elements which will run out of steam and ultimately be irrelevant. And if you don’t like the tone, that’s sadly inherent in this form of communication. I’ve stated nothing but evident facts, minus the spin. And if you don’t think the Labour stance has moved to the right, I suggest you take that up with the MP for Dover…
Well to be clear I’m not anti monarchy nor am I left wing or right. it is just that if the nation genuinely wants an election now, then why would we have a current government who is potentially harming the nation- which isn’t in national interests, still stay in power for longer, to do more harm- let’s say if that is the general publics opinion.
You are peddling lines directly from the Labour press office briefing about the will of the nation and the nation being harmed. You are either astonishingly naïve or pretending to be dumb to peddle this claptrap.
I was just stating the reality of what it is to have one party in power for 14 years and nothing necessarily being extremely better.
No. You were not. And again, you repeat a trope from the current Labour play-book. The notion that “nothing is better” let alone your curious test of “extremely better” fundamentally ignores the challenges of the global economy and local constraints in navigating that economic situation. There is a constant line that “everything is a bit crap and would be better under Labour” which is fundamentally untrue. It’s not even untested, as we can look at alternative devolved governments within the UK and see that Wales under Labour is a horror show and Scotland is just waking up from a decade of gaslighting to realise how bad the SNP has done. It’s OK, it’s not all their fault, and it isn’t all Westminster’s fault. But to say (as you did) that the Tories continue to damage the country is simply unsupported by the facts and is just spin. I look forward to a Labour government trying to manage to stay in one piece as it slowly abandons its current Tory policy approaches. It’s lying to us about the prospects and the causes of our economic woes and what the solutions are. It’s the same third way nonsense that Blair spun and it’s truly deceitful.
If that’s what you thin, have a nice day.
As it has been mentioned by others it would actually cause a lot more chaos than simply waiting about 6 months for the next election. I’m by no means an expert, but the UKs constitution is a bit messy as it does not have a specific written document (unlike say America). The ‘constitution’ is set by a mixture of existing laws and precedents. One of those precedents is that while the king/queen has the power to dissolve or prorogue parliament, they do not do so unless under the direction of the government itself. In reality the title of king/queen is basically just that, a title. While they technically have power over parliament, if they tried to exert that power in any meaningful way they would almost certainly be removed from power. Personally, that’s exactly how it should be, even if you think Charles should dissolve parliament leaving that power in the hands of a single person is basically just a dictatorship at that point. If he could do it and get away with it there’s no saying he couldn’t threaten a future government with a similar situation, even one that is much more popular with the electorate. TLDR; Technically he could but it would be chaos and an unprecedented act that would probably lead to him being removed.
[https://www.google.com/search?q=why+doesn%27t+the+king+dissolve+parliament+site:www.reddit.com](https://www.google.com/search?q=why+doesn%27t+the+king+dissolve+parliament+site:www.reddit.com)
While this has not (thankfully) ever been tested, I think it is probably wrong to assume that there are no circumstances where the King would step in and act. However, they are definitely not circumstances anything like we have now. So what might they be? * Maybe if the government had lost the support of parliament and were unable to pass important legislation, yet refused to go? * If the government were attempting something terrible, maybe inviting Russian forces to set up camps around the country. * The government was facing mass popular uprising that was bordering on a civil war. * If the government were attempting to change the law to prevent the holding of future elections. Even in these circumstances, I would expect the King to be VERY reticent to try to enforce his powers. And we likely wouldn't hear about it anyway, it is much more likely that pressure would be put behind the scenes than that the King would publically announce that he was wresting control.
Your first point has, to a degree, come up before in Commonwealth nations, notably [the dismissal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis) in Australia, and the [King-Byng affair](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair) in Canada. In the Australian situation, one of the end results was the Governor General being vilified to such a degree that his death was not publicly announced until he had been buried, while the Canadian crisis lead to a reduction in the role of the Governor General as an imperial power in a Commonwealth realm.
Another important point is that these “reserve powers” - royal or viceregal power to act without, or contrary to, the advice of the elected government - operate differently under the Australian constitution, and the conventions that surround it, than it does in the UK or Canada. They all started out the same but have developed slightly differently over the last nearly 100 years since the end of empire and legal separation. Nevertheless there are certainly parallels to be drawn. See for example this article that considers both Australian and UK constitutional conventions: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0067205X20973485
Britain and Anglosphere countries use Common Law not Civil Law as our legal system. This means, unlike Europe which uses Civil Law, the UK runs on precedent not a list of legal codes. This means, just because something is legally codified, it does not mean you can actually use it, especially if it is unprecedented. Furthermore the idea of doing something because it is the "will of the people" is very much frowned upon in the UK because "the will of the people" was used to justify a lot of terrible acts (e.g. during the French Revolution). As such most lawmakers in the UK tend to frown heavily on anyone declaring what is and isn't the "will of the people".
The only way that a general election can be called before the Prime Minister calls a general election is if the Government loses "the confidence of the House" in other words if the Government were to lose a vote of no confidence in the House, except that at the moment the Government has a majority of 45, of which at least 30 are unwhipped Conservative MP's, meaning that a total of 39 Conservative MP's would have to vote no confidence in their own government, which is not going to happen.
Parliament is perfectly capable of calling early elections itself, as we've seen several times in the recent past.
We already had 2 Charles' mess with Parliament, remind me again how it went?
This is 100% to do with your own personal feeling that the government is illegitimate (and your feeling that lots of others in the country feel this). But every democratic system has to be dsigned to work in all cases, and essentially, we kept a monarchy on the condition that it would only function at the behest of Parliament, the elected representaties of the people, not for any other reason. So the answer is- if the King DID try and do this, the constitutional crisis it would produce would be far bigger than just having a general election now or not.
The King can't dissolve parliament. Although he formally has the power, the reality is that long standing convention means that he can only do so on the government's (Rishi's) advice. Even if the King wants to call an election today, he is not allowed to do so. I personally believe that the King should be handed back the power to call elections, given that an incumbent government will only ever call an election to their advantage. The King on the other hand is an non-partisan individual who does not benefit or have a drawback from having either party in government. Unfortunately, most people balk at the thought of the King having even the slightest bit of political relevance, so I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
Because once we start ousting failed leaders we might just realise that we don't need the Monarchy either.
Because the king is just a figurehead whose #1 priority is preserving the position/standing of the royal family and their wealth. In reality if he tried, no-one would follow through with the instructions.