Is there anyway to change the system?

While i disagree with all your suggestions i would focus on a few things..

1) Replacing the monarch with another beurocrat would be horrid. Especially since they do no harm secondly because the monarchy is profitable and is only likely to cost us less rather than more. Finally because the Queen and Will/Kate are beloved. There is no appetite outside of fringe politics.

2) The second amendment is the most retarded thing still enacted. This is not the 1800's where the police lacked the ability to solve crimes.

Do you think we should move towards a Presidential style system with the 3 arms of Government? We get rid of the monarchy and have elections for the Houses of Lords and Commons and the Presidency.

The royal houses are sold off and converted into large communities. I heard that one Royal House in Scotland had apparently 10,000 acres of land. Buckingham Palace can be the President’s House and Windsor Castle can be their summer home.

Imagine President Corbyn and Vice President Yvette Cooper addressing the nation.

God no, we need less politicians.

Land ownership in the UK is one thing i have issue with because it is one of the few things in which history still dictates. The Duke of York and Camrbidge University are two of the largest land owners in the UK.

That said there is nothing as radical as stealing Royal property required. Simply allow land to be leased if not used for residential or commercial purposes.

Ok, that is fair.

Surely, we should be democratic and have elections for our Head of State and Government?

The current system has served us well for 400 years. I can think of very few modern situations in which having an elected beurocrat would have been beneficial.

Hell, imagine if we had Labour President Blair when Boris asked for proroguement.

If Prime Minister Boris did such with President Blair, we would have been satisfied with the checks and balances. However, the argument now is that the Monarch has no right to be there nor do they have a right to get involved in politics.

God no, we need less politicians.

Land ownership in the UK is one thing i have issue with because it is one of the few things in which history still dictates. The Duke of York and Camrbidge University are two of the largest land owners in the UK.

That said there is nothing as radical as stealing Royal property required. Simply allow land to be leased if not used for residential or commercial purposes.

The point is not that the Queen cannot intervene in the political process but rather that what happened this week got nowhere near the threshold for her doing so.

Refusing to resign if a viable alternative Government can be formed would be grounds for dismissing a PM. The precedents, including her grandfather's precedent, is that creating peers to overcome House of Lords resistance needs the PM to win an election on that very issue. I suspect that if she was asked to refuse Royal Assent, she would insist that the matter was referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (there is a procedure for this) to advise her whether this was lawful.

President Blair would be in no better position and would not have 60 plus years of political neutrality to fall back on.

You have made excellent points, but shouldn't we have a democratically elected President make such a decision?

Anyone who is elected; let us say Michael Higgins or Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is still a political figure. He has a "side".

While i disagree with all your suggestions i would focus on a few things..

1) Replacing the monarch with another beurocrat would be horrid. Especially since they do no harm secondly because the monarchy is profitable and is only likely to cost us less rather than more. Finally because the Queen and Will/Kate are beloved. There is no appetite outside of fringe politics.

2) The second amendment is the most retarded thing still enacted. This is not the 1800's where the police lacked the ability to solve crimes.

imagine if we had Labour President Blair when Boris asked for proroguement.

Hi all, before I start let me just say I don't get into politics that much so go easy on me.

I think people will agree with me when I say that the current government is a mess. There's no clear leadership, so neither side can do the thing they want and we seem to be stuck in a limbo of no progress.

I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to restructure the way the government works. Such as changing the first pass the post voting system for a start.

I haven't really thought about what major changes could be made to prevent the UK from entering limbo again in the future. Does anyone else have any ideas?

Again I apologise if I said something stupid, I don't usually discuss politics.

So you’re against democracy then? I. Any think of any good reason to keep unelected politicians in the upper chamber and 2 reasons to make it so, namely getting rid of the corrupt and unpopular no hopers that tow the party line.

This institution is simply dead. Danny dyer May as well be our next monarch. They no longer serve any purpose and are basically now state funded celebrities with undue influence. Also look at Prince Andrew and how dodgy he is with his dealing with Epstein etc. That man is protected because he is royalty. And that is wrong. I think when the queen goes it should be rolled out even though I like William and Kate.

Because I support in particular the first and second amendment and whilst no constitution is perfect I think it is better than having not having one like us .

I disagree. If we can find the money to fund pointless wars for Israel or Bailing out the banks we can make buy mass infrastructure spending. But I do think we should cut back spending on some things. It will of course be a big shock to our economy but as our economy is unsustainable anyway and also immoral then it’s something that needs to happen. Sometimes when you’ve walked the wrong path it’s better to go back and start again.

Google, Facebook and Amazon for instance all operate within the U.K and the first two have flagrantly interfered in elections around the globe and are de facto a quasi corporate dictatorship.

1 : A bureaucrat is better than a celebrity, which is all they are now. The only reason to support the monarchy is entirely misplaced sentiment. Monarchy will at every conceivable chance serve to save their own skin rather than act for the national interest.

2: what has the second amendment got to do with the police solving crimes???

its there primarily to

A: Protect its populace from a tyrannical government

B: Allow it’s populace to function as a militia

C: Allows responsible individual citizens the right to greater protection.

And it does a good job on all three counts though of course the government wants to take them away for their own good of course...

Yes but then again so are you...

Simply put you are wrong, the institution is still wildly popular and you are in a minority opinion
It isnt illegal to have a bad choice in friends...

We do have one, albeit an unwritten one.

And politicians don’t serve their own interests.

The fact that you think an armed conflict with government would be a good thing is alarming, Who defines tyranny. The only reason the US believes that is because federal government literally went to war to impose itself on the confederate states. This is the UK, a unitary state with only two seriously contested regions and We are the federal government imposing its will in this case.

The second point is downright terrifying.

First change - introduce a financial transaction tax

Second change - nationalise the land and create a written constitution.

Third change - abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an Ombudsman's Office that vets all legislation.

Fourth change - a parliament elected from constituencies that return 2 or 3 members (who cannot join the executive until they renounce their seat) and which selects a prime minister from time served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession.

Fifth change - an executive composed of time-served MP's or time-served members of a recognised profession selected by the prime minister.

Sixth change - a President (4votes) elected by the polity, senior vice- President (2votes) and junior vice-president (1vote) elected by parliament from time-served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession (the president would be Head of State and run the country in the absence of a Prime Minister selected by parliament or if less than 50% of the polity vote (parliament scrutinising presidential governance as it would prime ministerial).

Seventh change - Extend remit of NS&I Bank to be the sole issuer of new money as the domestic central bank in charge of the consolidated fund (government receipts) the international banks become banks of deposit and the BoE the point of contact between them and the national economy.

First change - introduce a financial transaction tax

Second change - nationalise the land and create a written constitution.

Third change - abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an Ombudsman's Office that vets all legislation.

Fourth change - a parliament elected from constituencies that return 2 or 3 members (who cannot join the executive until they renounce their seat) and which selects a prime minister from time served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession.

Fifth change - an executive composed of time-served MP's or time-served members of a recognised profession selected by the prime minister.

Sixth change - a President (4votes) elected by the polity, senior vice- President (2votes) and junior vice-president (1vote) elected by parliament from time-served MP's or a time-served member of a recognised profession (the president would be Head of State and run the country in the absence of a Prime Minister selected by parliament or if less than 50% of the polity vote (parliament scrutinising presidential governance as it would prime ministerial).

Seventh change - Extend remit of NS&I Bank to be the sole issuer of new money as the domestic central bank in charge of the consolidated fund (government receipts) the international banks become banks of deposit and the BoE the point of contact between them and the national economy.