'If I Were In Charge' [Long Read - Opinion Article]

If I had “my way”, the country would be governed very differently. As I get older, I start to think that the way in which governance occurs in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. This antiquated system that runs this country refuses to change, refuses to adapt, and is now being played by the morally ambiguous for a fiddle. It has given way to a level of tribalism hitherto unseen in this country and, quite frankly, it’s breaking the country apart. Given how Britain is now out of the EU and wants to start a new path in the world, it seems right to me that the country should, much like the Doctor in Doctor Who, regenerate. It’s time to hit the reset button and try to make a Britain fit for the 21st Century and beyond.

Before I start, this is not an essay. This will not have statistics, it will not have evidence backing it up, this is an opinion piece. This is an article showcasing what I would do if I were in charge, while also recognizing that this particular vision of mine will never occur. Even if like-minded people saw this and decided they wanted to see that change occur, the chances of it actually coming to fruition are minimal. This is for a number of reasons, one of which is the fact that I doubt it would get widespread support across the country, another being that any kind of change like this would have to come from some kind of uprising or revolution for it to really kick-start. This particular method of governance does not benefit the people currently in power, so they would have no need to alter the system.

I must also recognise that, despite my best attempts to talk about how my idea would work and what I would personally do to cement it in permanent governance, it is not without flaws. It would not be a perfect system, nothing is. But I will try my best, anyway, to illustrate it as best I can. I’m sure many of you would disagree, but I would implore you to see this more as a thought experiment than anything else. I’m not Marx, I’m not trying to advocate an uprising to get something changed, I’m merely putting forward an alternative if, one day, a revolutionary change occurs in this country. (Which, to be completely honest, I’m close to arguing it’s needed).

THE ROYAL FAMILY

I’m going to write something now that I’ve never admitted to before. The reasons for this include it’s a little bit taboo, people wouldn’t necessarily understand and it could be seen as anti-Democratic. But, for the past few years, I have developed Monarchist tendencies. I’m not a full Monarchist, nor do I believe that the Royal Family would be a suitable replacement for governance in this country on its own. However, I personally believe that the Royal Family still have an active role to play in 21st Century governance. Partly because I think it would be useful for them to further earn their extraordinary annual pay packet, but also because they are still an important part of British culture, especially the perception of British culture abroad.

At the moment, the King/Queen has a limited role in the day-to-day running of state. The Monarch has the power to open and close Parliamentary sessions, as well as give Royal Assent to bills before they become enshrined in law. However, unlike Charles I, the Queen cannot enter the House of Commons and close the Parliament on a whim. The Monarch could, once upon a time, refuse to give Royal Assent which could lead to a Government resigning, especially if the issue was contentious. However, this was somewhat negated with the Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2011. (Which, let’s be honest here, has become a little dead in the water of late). But the Palace’s role in the day-to-day running of Britain is minimal. The Royal Family has been, since the restoration, largely ceremonial in favour of Parliamentary democracy. 

An increased role for the Monarch, in my personal vision, would not necessarily be a bad thing. Especially once I’ve laid out my vision in full. This is all background and context. Of course, one of the major downsides for an increased role for the Monarch, is who that Monarch is. We don’t want a return to the Georgian period where the Monarch, or indeed Prince Regent, was held in disdain due to their somewhat luxurious tendencies. For instance, I don’t believe the Queen would abuse that increased role. Nor do I believe Charles or William would. 

I won’t comment on George right now as he’s young and we don’t know how he’s going to view the world the older he gets. But a few generations down the line, if you have someone who favours dictatorial rule, then that could create problems. That being said, once I’ve laid out my visions in full, there may be a way to negate this behaviour.

Despite this, I believe that the Royals definitely have a role to play. Especially given their public and charity work in recent decades. Especially the younger Royals. And, like I said before, there’s no harm in making them work a little harder for their annual pay check?

PARLIAMENT AND THE ROLE OF POLITICAL TRIBALISM

I’m not against Parliamentary Democracy. I want to make that clear. If a country wants to go down that route they should be allowed to determine that for themselves. I’m merely offering an alternative thought experiment. However, my opinion on Parliament has changed in recent years. Especially since the Brexit Referendum.

It is my opinion that the actions of Parliament, on all sides, in the 2010s has led to a period of tribalism and division that is the worst we’ve seen since the Victorian Period. You can start this process with the 2008 Financial Crash, or you can start it with the election of the Coalition. Either way, we are where we are. And it is my opinion that the Conservative Parliamentary Party, and other supra-Parliamentary actors, have sowed the seeds of division. On balance, I would also argue that many in the Labour grassroots organisations, especially Momentum, have sown this further. But Brexit was the ultimate catalyst for the division we see now. Although Covid-19 dominates the stage here now, Brexit dominated it for the 4 years prior. Families were torn apart, friendships were lost and even lives were lost in the pursuit of a break from the EU. (For those who are confused, I am referring to the murder of Jo Cox).

That’s not to say everyone has been this bitterly divisive. I was largely indifferent to the issue but still voted to Remain. My opinion on that has changed and even reversed a few times in the years that followed. But even once the result came through, I was put in with a group of people who had the opinion of “Not what I would’ve liked, but let’s make it work anyway”. (I would argue a silent group these days). 

Despite this, the Brexit divisions have left no part of the country unscathed, especially in Parliament. Theresa May, for all her faults, tried her hardest to make her mark on Parliament by trying to be the PM that got it done. But she faced criticism on all sides. In another time, she may have been a decent PM by pre-Brexit standards. Alas, it was not to be. And now we have Boris. Who, in my honest opinion, is a class-A racist charlatan. A Etonian classist who has zero integrity and would happily throw anyone under his red bus if it meant he got the ratings and the limelight. I do not like Boris Johnson one iota. I felt sorry for him when he was in intensive care with the virus, but I do not like him at all whatsoever. And it is actually Boris that I would like to use as the example for tribalism.

Whether it’s his rhetoric, his change of mind, or his bus, Boris (and Cummings) has been the centre of a campaign of disinformation and propaganda since the day he came to Downing Street. The job he’d wanted all his life, and he has proved time and time again that he quantifiably unfit for office. Boris will not be remembered as a statesman. Depending on what happens in the future, his complementors will compare him to Churchill, while his critics will compare him to a dumpster fire. 

With that in mind, there is an interesting trend. People still defend him. There is now a whole tribe of people who will readily defend him no matter what he says or what he does. I’ve experienced it for myself. Though it may not seem like it now, I do try to stay in the middle ground of things. I like balance. Giving credit where credit is due and criticism where it is required. But I have been in situations where people have defended Boris, and other Brexiteers, for quite questionable things. 

Now, on balance, this is not unique to Boris. Jeremy Corbyn had the same thing with Momentum. Jeremy Corbyn could call for a total Leninist-style takeover and Momentum would probably beat their drums with the heads of the Bourgeoisie. But there has been a more tangible and noticeable increase in Tribalism through the 2010s. It happens on all sides. And in a lot of Western countries. Some people on the Right would refer to it as the ‘Culture War’. (I have a massive issue with that name anyway but that’s for another time). But with the recent BLM protests in the US and across the West, this division is becoming much clearer to the average person. Trumpers or Antifa, Remain or Leave, there are distinct tribes now. They’ve always been there, but they have become more apparent and much more mainstream in the 2010s. Is this down to the internet? In large part, yes. Probably. But, again, that’s for another time.

Is Tribalism useful in politics? Well, that’s debatable. As this is my opinion article, no. I don’t think it is. Because, in my opinion, it limits societal progress. Because you either have those who want to advance a cause to catch up with modern change or thinking, and those who think or believe it’s an abhorrence, or some kind of ideological takeover that threatens their very existence. It’s pointless. And this tribalism is being exploited by the prominent voices in those camps. For the Right Wing, it would be the likes of Katie Hopkins, Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson or Americans such as Tucker Carlson, Jim Jordan. For the Left, Owen Jones, Ash Sakar, Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders to name a few. (Just to point out my own left-wing bias, I like Owen and Ash, they were just names I’d come across).

But even then, to me, Tribalism accomplishes nothing except stagnate political and societal progression. And, in my experience, this tribalism usually comes down to a name. “Labour”, “Conservative”, “Democrat”, “Republican”. When those names are invoked, suddenly a whole cache of stereotypical characteristics are thrown into the ether as pre-judgement. “Oh, you’re Republican? You’re clearly a racist”. “Oh you’re Labour? You’re a Communist!” “Oh, you’re a Libtard”. Pfft.

Let’s get a few things straight here. Not everyone who supports Labour is a Marxist/Communist. Not everyone who is Liberal is easily “triggered”. Not everyone who is Republican is a Trump-supporter and not everyone who is Tory is a heartless classist. 

The name-calling, the venom, the needless stereotypes are pointless in the grand scheme of things. And, again, this is being exploited by the people in charge. Which, in turn, affects the outcome of Democracy. It’s part of the “Us v Them” mentality. Give someone an enemy or a scapegoat and they become putty in your hands. This is why immigration (and illegal immigration) became one of the main talking points during the Referendum. Because a lot of people, UKIP and right-wing Tories especially, made it that way. It’s not a new talking point, but it certainly poisoned a lot of the reasonable debate around a pretty important topic.

The right to free speech is a key and integral part of any functioning society. It’s a good cause to defend and it’s an important right to uphold in the 21st Century. 

But that doesn’t mean that the current system is still fit for purpose. Of course, with free speech, there needs to be a better understanding of the fact that just because you have an opinion, it doesn’t mean you’re right. And with the onset of a new wave of “Fake News” and disinformation online, the fight for free speech has become more intense than ever. The enemy is not necessarily an opposing ideology that censors free speech, like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but it’s the enemy within. The enemy in your hand. Technology is a wonderful thing, but democracy is still coming to terms with how social media and technology is advancing. Because, let’s be honest, it’s advancing at break-neck speed. 20 years ago, “Fake News” was a sensationalist headline in a tabloid newspaper. Now it can be literally anything. To the point where there are multiple camps of people (or tribes to recycle a term) who are so consumed in their own echo chambers that truth is diluted now.

If you’re Donald Trump, CNN is the bastion of ‘fake news’. This is largely because they are highly critical of him, and rightly so. But if you’re like me and left-wing, Fox News or Breitbart is the ultimate form of fake news because of how evidently politically slanted it is. But within that, where is the truth? Does CNN tell the truth all the time? Does Fox News lie always? Because the tribes are so consumed in their own worlds, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to see the truth for what it actually is. 

But then, even ‘truth’ comes under multiple definitions now, depending on who you ask. Again, CNN will claim they’re telling the truth when they say that Hydroxychloroquine is not a cure for Covid-19, while “Dr” Stella Immanuel claims to be telling the truth when she says it is. And different people believe both. I can’t remember the last time the majority of a population actually agreed on a universal truth. There are still people who believe that NASA is lying about the Earth being round, it’s really difficult to discuss the truth these days. You’re either telling the truth or a sheep. You’re either sane or a conspiracy theorist waiting for tin-hat-time. 

And so the fields of division grow further. And leaders these days prey on this. Trump, Duterte, Bolsonaro, Johnson and others, they like this level of tribalism and division. It comes straight out of the populist playbook. But no-one seems to be doing anything vaguely constructive in order to sort it out. Because the more people who are scared, the easier their message spreads. The more people believe someone else is to blame, they can divide the population. The more people they can control, the easier their ride becomes. Especially when the enemies tend to be foreigners or BAME groups, who have a hard enough time as it is in Western nations.

This is why democracy is stagnating. And this is why leaders are playing democracy for a fool. Democracy is brilliant when it works. Right now, in many Western nations, it’s not. And, in my opinion, in the UK, it’s not working correctly right now.

Do I want to end free speech? No. No I don’t. Do I want to end Democracy? Again, no.

So what’s the Alternative?

THE VISION

Here’s the melt-in-the-middle centre I’m getting at. If our Democracy fails, we cannot allow the country to fall into a power vacuum. History shows that when power vacuums occur, that’s when the extremes take over. We don’t want to be under a Soviet-style dictatorship, nor do we want a fascist Britain. (Well, most sane-minded people don’t anyway). So, what can we have instead?

Here’s what I’d do if I was given the political sandbox.

We need a robust style of Government that can overcome the challenges of the 21st Century, can protect free speech and allow free-speech to prosper while also serving the ever changing needs of a modern population and a modern nation-state determined to be world-class in everything it does. Something that works for everyone, and something that can’t easily be played by amoral people who want to use it for their own ends.

First thing’s first.

In this particular vision, we need to abolish both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Palace of Westminster still has a role to play, but it will not house the Commons or the Lords.

The Commons would be replaced. The Lords, however, would not be. In this new system, there would be no place for inherited titles and there will be no place for anyone to put their friends or supporters in to try and gain an advantage. The Lords, in this system, would be permanently abolished. There would not be a need for 2 Houses of Parliament in order to govern.

The Commons would be replaced, however, by a Citizens’ Assembly. Now, the idea of a Citizens’ Assembly has been mooted countless times before. The Green Party are one of the main proponents of this, but this is to work in tandem with the current system. Instead, in this system, the Citizens’ Assembly would be the main body of Governance.

The Citizens’ Assembly would be a smaller body than the House of Commons in the sense that there would not be 650 seats in the House. There would instead be between 100-120. This would account for every county in all 4 nations of the UK, as well as major cities having their own seat. (In my personal vision for this, Yorkshire would actually be divided into 2-4 seats given its size, with 2 going to York and another city). Obviously, this amount only works if Scotland remains in the UK once this was instigated. 

Each representative would be decided by a democratic election. There would be a democratic exercise every 3 years to elect the Assembly members. Although, sitting members will be subject to a 2 term limit. Meaning that, potentially, the Assembly’s makeup would refresh by 50-75% every six years. Allowing for more new ideas to come through and be put forward. 

Each representative, although allowed their own ideology and may be a part of an external political group, would have to stand as Independent come the election. No candidate would be allowed to stand for Assembly on a party affiliation, meaning no party gets a majority in the Assembly. The idea is that a mix of ideologies and a mix of different ideas come together and try to get things done. I understand that this is very much easier said than done, but the capacity is there.

The AMs would also have to abide by a strict code of ethics, which they have to swear during an inauguration ceremony at the start of every new Assembly cycle. These codes would include (but not be limited to):

• Not be “bought” by big companies or accept bribes by individuals, companies or lobbyists.

• Speak only for their constituents, gauge their opinion before any decision is made.

• Adhere to a strict expenses policy, with a cap on how much an AM can claim, as well as strict criteria for what they can claim for.

• Dismiss and retire all political affiliations upon ascending to the Assembly. They would not be allowed to accept any endorsement or funding from said organisation either. They can take them up again once their term expires.

• Agree to one month’s voluntary service in the community so as to gain more perspective of the lives of ordinary people. This could be in any sector and would be part of the annual 2 month Assembly recess.

A breach of many of these codes could end in a dismissal from office if found guilty of said breach. Candidates can stand for Assembly if they have a criminal record, but they must not have had any serious criminal convictions. (Assault, rape, murder, manslaughter, financial crime, etc).

The actual ins and outs of the Assembly would be decided by committee while it was being set up. But the day-to-day running of the Assembly would not be too dissimilar from what MPs do now, only with more of an emphasis on being available for community sessions as well as committee meetings, many of which would be a mixture of online and not. AMs whose seats are within an hour or two of London would be expected to attend in person, while those who have to travel from further away may be allowed to attend virtually.

To which Governmental Department each AM would lead would be decided by the Assembly itself. While the electorate would choose who they want to be First Minister, AMs would put themselves up for selection to the offices and would be elected by their colleagues. This saves voter fatigue. (Given that, in this scenario, the election cycle is every 3 years). 

As for the higher echelons of the Assembly, the head of state, and the head of the Assembly, would be shared between 2 people. The first would be a democratically elected AM to the position of First Minister. The First Minister’s role would be not too dissimilar to that of the Prime Minister now, except for the fact that they would be sharing leadership duties with the sitting Monarch. 

The First Minister would be subject to the same rules and regulations as an ordinary AM, but they would be expected to perform more duties in relation to the office. The First Minister would take more of a role in domestic issues, concentrating on things at home, while the Monarch would be more concerned with the Diplomatic side of British politics. So, for instance, when it comes to international summits, the sitting Monarch would be expected to attend and not the First Minister. (If the Monarch is of an older age and cannot perform those duties, the First Minister would attend such engagements in their place). But the division of Home and Abroad would be reflected in how Governance is practised.

The First Minister, however, could attend international engagements with the Monarch if the Monarch so requested. That being said, the power of the Monarch would not be absolute. The Assembly would be the Second body of Governance that would keep the Monarch in check, or vice versa. 

• THE EXECUTIVE BODY - The Monarch
• THE ADMINISTRATIVE BODY - The Assembly
• THE JUDICIAL BODY - The Supreme Court

The role of the First Minister would also be somewhat ambassadorial in nature, being the main figure that would connect the Assembly and the Palace. The Monarch and the First Minister would be expected to work together closely in order to help shape Britain’s path. This would mean splitting the duties that a Prime Minister might perform between the Monarch and the First Minister, though the Monarch would still be the head of state and the internationally recognised leader of the UK. 

The Assembly would be able to pass legislation, but there would have to be a majority for it to pass. The Monarch would not have a vote in the Assembly as they would not be an elected member, but they can introduce legislation. They could also introduce legislation alongside the First Minister jointly if it were appropriate to. 

For checks and balances on power:

• While a First Minister could not bring forward legislation to have a Monarch removed, the Monarch could bring forward a vote of no-confidence in the First Minister, but only if certain criteria were met. The Monarch would not be allowed to remove a sitting First Minister unilaterally.

• The Assembly could reject legislation brought about by the Monarch without legal or constitutional recourse. If a piece of Royal Legislation was rejected by a slim majority, the Monarch may be invited to work with the Assembly to amend the bill in order to help it pass in a future session.

• The Monarch would have to be invited to attend Assembly meetings. They could not arrive unexpectedly or without invitation. Though they would be required to attend Committee hearings.

• The Monarch could not unilaterally dissolve the Assembly. They would need to put forward legislation for that to occur and, if it was a premature dissolution, they would need to be invited to the Assembly to justify why they’re introducing the bill.

For the Monarch’s part, many of the Royals (when they are adults) would be expected to have an active role in governance. In a sense, like a Cabinet, the Monarch could choose certain Royals to be Palace Ambassadors for certain departments. (For example, if Charles were King and this system were in place, he may select Princess Eugenie to be the Palace Ambassador for Culture and Sport, or select Prince William to be the Palace Ambassador for the Foreign Office). The Monarch would have control over who they selected to which post, but would have no say to which AMs would be selected to the office as well. There would also be no number of times that the Monarch could change who represents which department if it doesn’t appear to be working or the Royal selected is not suited to the role.

The idea is that the Monarchy and the Elected Assembly work closely together for the progression and the betterment of the UK. The role of the Royals becomes much more involved than it currently is, while the Democratically elected body becomes a constantly-moving conveyor belt of ideas. 

This is merely a snapshot of my idea. I understand that it all sounds very odd, far-fetched and impossible, but all embryonic ideas do at the start.

The key takeaways from this:

1. The Monarch would not have absolute power, but would have the ceremonial power they still enjoy while having a more active role in governance than they do now. 

2. The British Assembly would solely consist of democratically elected officials and not have two Houses.

3. There would be a First Minister, who would work in tandem with the Monarch to govern Britain.

4. This would be an attempt to modernize governance to reflect modern values and modern practices against a system of governance that is, in my opinion, becoming unfit for purpose. 

I understand that this seems far-fetched and is probably fraught with flaws. But this is merely the first attempt at writing down a system of governance I’ve been trying to concoct for years. It will evolve as time goes on. I will continue to revisit this at various times and add things to it. Iron out kinks and try to work out various flaws that people may raise. So please don’t take it as gospel. It’s a thought experiment. Or at best, something someone can read in the future and think “Hmm, could work…”

Feel free to critique constructively. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this. What would you like to see within this framework? What issues do you think would arise from it? Like I say, it's a thought experiment. So provide yours. At the end of the day, if this were ever to be implemented, (it won't), it would have to be a collective effort.

Or, what would be your preferred method?

Until next time.