Celritannia wrote:The Nihilistic view wrote:
Why should they? We have a system that works. Works better than most systems in the world and has done for longer than most. As soon as one accepts one can't make direct democracy work one has already abandoned the idea a full democracy. Once one has done the question is not what is most democratic but which balances democracy, executive accountability, the role of the head of state and the set up of the legislature best. I look around the world, I can't see a better system than we have. They all on balance have negatives to the plus points making it all rather spurious.
Because we need a fully codified constitution to remove Royal Prerogative from the PM and have actual listed powers for the Head of Government.
No, because Parliament basically bickers about the simplest of debates. In other European Parliamentary systems elect their PMs through Parliamentary vote or first selection by the speaker then Election of the Parliament.
And we still have a House of Lords that needs to be altered.
If there is to be a balance, separates the executive and legislature, write down the powers of the PM and not take them from a Royal Prerogative and take them from an actual codified constitution. You know, like well developed and modern Parliamentary systems like Sweden, Japan, Germany.
"It's 2016!" And? So what about other countries? What they do is irrelevant. That's not an argument.







