Some may view as archaic but our political system has worked for centuries, has been admired and inspired by other countries and institutions, being the leaders of democracy and human rights, but all the time and the interesting part, is that each of our former colonial countries, we gave them a Bill of Rights and a written constitution, while our constitution remains largely unwritten but successful. Now the measure of its success is disputable and change is needed to make sure each part of our Union is treated fairly and right now, Scotland does have more than its Welsh counterpart, Scotland has its own Parliament, Wales has its National Assembly and now Plaid Cymru wants to see Wales as a republic and Scotland as we all know, seeks independence despite the once in a generation vote that said NO
We already have, as mentioned above, a type of federalism, but it just needs to be managed more in my opinion and one suggestion with this as proposed by UKIP is to replace the Barnett formula - whether it is replaced or reformed, something needs to be done to start fixing these issues, but I would not want to see the UK federalised like the USA, I stand by our Monarchy. I feel that if we took the Monarchy away, I would not feel British anymore. The Queen makes Britain, Britain and the royals themselves presents Britain's place in the world on the global stage, while also increasing commercialism and tourism, for those who are interested in the economic value. What do people think of when they think of Britain? Tea, Pound, Queen - federalism would remove this British identity. Even the Scots in their referendum, wanted to have our Queen as theirs too and that's from a party that wants to be independent, so they do not want too big changes.
Swanbow brought up about the Senate and that's another thing to get me started with my blood pumping, because it's true! not a lot has been said about it, so we don't truly know what's it all about, how it will work and what we are in for, which I find entirely unfair. I tried seeking answers to Labour itself, but all I received was the promotion leaflet that stated the policy, same when I asked about how tuition fees would be repaid under the £6K, but gave me nothing, which I am truly disappointed with, so I can only base the Senate on what I know from studying Public and Constitutional Law:
USA has Houses of Congress, made up of two Houses; House of Representatives and the Senate
UK has Houses of Parliament, made up of two Houses; House of Commons and the Senate (under proposed plans)
^
See the similarity? and the problem the Obama administration faced, the elected administration faced, was when both Houses were largely represented by the Opposition which makes policies very difficult to put forward. Now, if you vote a party to do X/Y/Z and they do carry them out but the opposing party in both Houses block it, then what is the point of voting? Under our unwritten constitutional conventions, you are supposed to stand by your party, so if Milliband for examples presents a reduction of tuition fees to £6K which the voters want, but opposing parties say no - I'm just really concerned about it, it's can't really be said it is a Senate of representatives but a Senate of Nations, but don't we have elected representatives in the House of Commons already, based on who the Scottish/Welsh/Irish vote for to represent them
Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords posed a problem, but that's been dealt with so people can't just inherit a seat after doing nothing, but the Law Lords who do sit in the House of Lords do have expertise in their fields or an active role in their fields. Take for example Ros Altmann who once served Labour but is a pension campaigner and seeks financial education to help young people, so her experience would be gaining her a place in the House of Lords, so if a policy has to do with pensions, then clearly she would have a say on the matter, which those in the Commons might not have and exactly my point with a Senate of Nations. The House of Lords do not even have power over finance bills from the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, because the House of Commons under Lib-dem did not like the Lords stopping them - We should deal first with the House of Commons where the action happens