still cant come up with a reason not to replace the queen with a cat then, huh?

like ive said, cats are quiter and cheaper, theyd also have just as much power as you say the queen has, cats also are truly unbiased politicaly, really, if we have an unelected head of state, it cant be human in the intrest of neutrality, cost and use of there power.

It's relevant because the PM should have a better idea than most of what works for the UK Constitution. Gay rights is a pure political issue, the Monarchy is primarily a constitutional one.

I'd welcome a referendum on the Monarchy - I'm very confident of what its outcome would be.

Cats? But Cats are evil! You'll regret this SciFiBoy, be careful what you wish for.

As for all gamers getting £40m and oodles of power... in a perfect world....

The Monarchy isn't a waste of taxpayers money at all.  Have you any idea the sort of trade benefits, charitable benefits and other various benefits brought to the UK each year by diplomatic missions from Royal family members?  They FAR outweigh the costs of running the royal house.

Thats before we even look at the benefits of having a united figurehead.

I think the Royal family are a good thing. I think they make more money for Britain out of tourism and being ambassadors than we pay them. They have very few powers left, which is how it should be as they are unelected, but the Queen technically has the power to dissolve Parliament when the country is in a dire situation and we need that safety net just in case the government does something that endangers the country. Parliament is no longer a check on the PM's power and the Cabinet isn't either.

If future monarchs become any more involved in politics than the Queen is it should certainly be suspended.

This is the problem. It's not the Monarch, or the Lords, or Quangos that are the issues with our system, it's not even the Commons or the PM - it's the system itself. The constitution is weak, it's so easily changed. Now, of course, I'm not advocating a codified constitution, but we need to move some of the powers away from the Government and to (or back to) Parliament.

 - We need to get rid of the Royal Prerogative. All of the current powers of the Monarch, ie - declare peace, war, dissolve Parliament, etc, need to be moved away from the Queen and given to Parliament. Because this simply gives the Prime Minister too much power. However....

 - This will only be effective if we reduce the power of the Government over Parliament. Perhaps if we have a complete separation of powers, a la, the USA and have an elected Government separate from Parliament then the situation will be solved. However, this will never happen so other things should happen instead:

      - Something should be done to remove the power of the whips. Forcing MPs to vote against the will of their constituents and for the will of their party should be banned. This would also be doubled with weekly meetings between the MP and his/her Constituents to debate the issues currently going through the Parliament - to enhance the representative function, and to get the system to work as a democracy.

     - This system should be changed to be geared towards more Independent MPs. Removing the power of the whips, again, would do this. Also, changing the structuring of the debates so that they're not focused around just the governing party and HMO, but also around the smaller parties and the independents - as to improve both the scrutiny and debating functions of the House.

     - The Lords need more power. I've already made my case in this thread as to what I believe the structure of the Lords should be, now I will go on to suggest a few powers they should have:

            - The Lords should have the power to dissolve the Commons, and vice versa, this won't be a power done lightly, however, and would require perhaps an 80% yes vote to pass.

            - Whilst the Lords should still be second in power to the Commons for all non-constitutional and non-finance Bills, the Lords will have the ability to block or veto any other Bill as long as they suggest amendments and vote "no" with a large majority (75%). This should go on indefinitely as long as it's functioning correctly. If it is widely believed that the Lords are just voting no because of political issues and such, then the matter should be passed to the Monarch (yes, that's right), who can give the command to cut the debate and force the Lords to subside. This will pretty much be the only political power that the Monarch would hold.

Anyways, I won't say anymore, I don't want to turn this into a manifesto

trade? trade is dealt with by the government isnt it? charity? charitys and run idependently and not for profit, dont see how theyre relevant to the monarchy, unless of course youre saying the monarchy have charitys that are funded by the state, which makes them not charitys but state initiatives. what other various benefits? diplomacy is again primarily done by the government, as it should be. as i mentioned, tourism is not her, so much as its the historic sites and stuff, wether she is there or not is unlikely to have any majour impact on tourism.

again, as ive said time and time agian, not a united figurehead, never been elected so you cant say that, till there is an election, she is not uniting anyone.

isnt constitutional reform a political issue?

refferendum isnt enough, election is whats needed, many may be content with them being there, but when given alternatives, that may change.

Cat's arent evil, so again, why not?

you said the monarch is good because shes a gamer, but as i said, that dosent entitle here to money and power (unless she wins a competition of course, you get money from that, thats fine)

Maybe we should start with electing a Prime Minister instead of a political party before we look at the Monarchy.

how do you mean?

do you want like an independent PM who is elected apart from parliment?

or just another general election?

@Pyro

I don't like the idea of a Presidential election (which is what you are proposing). It would turn the PM into an even more untouchable, celebrity figure than he is - in the UK we don't respect our PMs as much as the US respect their President because he's seen as more ordinary. Even during the worst of Bush Americans had this ingrained respect for him that was damaging. The PM needs to be in touch with the public, and one of the only ways to ensure that is forcing him to be a party leader first after working his way up from a normal MP.

I think PR and the removal of whips would be sufficient to make Parliament independent.