giving thoose powers to parliment sounds like a good idea to me, probably one of the very few things i agree with cameron on.

things like the traditions you mentioned are off putting imo, they just make politics seem out of step and out of time with the rest of the country.

They can dely Bills, they have no power of Veto , and this limitation means that even if they have agenda they wont be able to influence the bill that was pushed by polticians in HoC. Lords do not have to be populists because they arent removable.

Prime Minister again is a leader of his party, has party affiliation, has to respond to changes in the Society. Head of State should not be a President of those who voted for him, he should be above such things.

Plus making a PM a head of State would make him de facto electable dictator that completely dominates politics (Monarchy still serves as some sort of symbolic institution above it), especially in british FPP system which favours government. (Look how many bills did Blair loose in House of Commons during his tenure)

Like i said before im all in favour of limiting resources for the royals, if the money is such a big issue.

Of Course there are no such thing as person with unanamous support (such things are only "possible" in totalitarian states", and dissent is what makes democracy work, but symbolic head of state through having limited political power can serve as Uniting figure in moments which are dividing society.

Think of HoL and Monarchy like of Judiciary, they arent elected and democratic thats right, but they make the system work, by providing guidance, rules and expertise. While still having still centre of power responsive to demands of the public in HoL

Quick question
Are you in Favour of Electing let say Judges or Prosecutors?
Or Making Civil Service Electable and Openned to Public Scrutiny?

Having every Official in the Country Electable would create Chaos (imagine if Supreme Court in US would be electable, things like Freedom of Speech, Right to Choose would be endangered)

I am not saying that British System is Perfect, however it is system that have survived Centuries from Magna Carta , through Reform Acts until now.

History is why we have them (like quite a few other European countries).

They do work for their money, in a sense, in terms of performing state visits, representing the country from a certain perspective, etc.  However clearly its a pretty cushy role overall.

Their power and position has been steadily altered, removing their authority from pretty much every area of governing the country.

They also furnish a heck of a lot of tabloid stories and money internationally - I understand that they sell very well in US for example.

Why do you ask?  Judging by your Avatar I'm rather worried you've got it in for them!

what if we give the monarchys powers to parliment then?

you do know that im in favour of PR for elections? i hate FPTP

im not advocating electing everone to every position, im advocating that people with political powers should be elected.

my argument against the monarchy is also that i see no point to them, we can give there powers to parliment or an elected head of state like ive said, at the moment the monarchy is essentially like setting fire to taxpayers money, i think we should use that cash for something else rather than burning it.

I personally don't think the Lords have enough power. They should be largely or wholly elected body with nigh-on equal amounts of power to the Commons.

The Commons has, over the centuries, slowly been eroding the powers of all the checks and balances that surround it. We're essentially living in a unicameral system, yet we pay for a bicameral one.

The Commons is too powerful and it needs to be reduced.

EDIT: And I've just thought of an example to prove my point. The expenses thing, people shouting about constitutional renewal, exciting times for people like me, as the constitution is very rarely at the forefront of British politics, and what was one of Brown's proposals? The ability for the Commons to remove members of the Lords? Further reducing the power of the Lords, rather than fixing the issues that lay with out Commons/Lords relationships.

how would you structure that and what sort of powers would you give the HoL?

Britain should get a codified Constitution first, because it does not have one, so its hard sometimes to actually define the relations of power.

And i agree with Samuel IR Smith, Commons have ridicilous amount of power and there is no scrutiny above it, but there is advantage of it things get done and goverment cant chat shit about being unable to put their ideas into power (which is the case in many countries), so they can be clearlky scrutinised by the public.

@SciFiBoy , i think the expenses on the Royalty are low compared to other stuff that simply eats away the money and could be slightly altered or reformed.

Is that 69 pounds?

If so, at 61 million people, that's 4.2 billion a year. A hell of a lot more then we pay for our Prez (and you still need to pay your PM).

i agree theres alot of pointless expenditure, i just think the royalty may aswell go as we can use there money aswell.

i agree also that we need a codified constitution, i think we need a much more accountable government which is elected by PR so partys get power based upon how many of us voted for them (more or less, i know no system is perfect)

Once the Commons has passed something, if the Lords would have to put a 75% no vote to block it, and the could do so indefinitely - as long as they give a basis and suggest amendments.

As for the structure, I'd go for 70% elected, 30% appointed. The 70% elected would be done on a purely PR system, and the terms would be longer than the Commons - Lords elections every 10 years, or so. The 30% would not be appointed by the Commons, but by an independent body who appoint solely on intellectual merits rather than for political gains. Appointed Lords will serve until they choose to retire, or if the appointment body deems that they are acting unprofessionally (never turning up, corruption, etc).

So the Commons will still have more power than the Lords, to keep the process quick (as loci is law pointed out ), but the Lords will hold a lot more scrutiny over the UK.

Of course, with my kind of devolution plans, this structure would simply be for the England, Wales, Scottish and Ulster Parliaments. Not the UK one (of which would not exist).