In the video above, I directly take on answering the questions stated in the headline by imaging a dictatorship of the monarchy - or put another way, a reversion of British executive power back to how it existed before the Glorious Revolution.
I think that much likelier than any of the scenarios outlined above, is that "FPTP ever-dwindling turnout. So in 2029 Labour crawls back in with a small majority of 12 on a vote share of 20% on a turnout of 50%, and then in 2034 a government gets in on a vote share of 17% on a turnout of 40% etc etc. Politics-heads will scream about the unfair nature of such outcomes and rail against FPTP, but those in all the Westminster parties will defend the system, refusing to make any changes because, hideously flawed though it is, it offers them at least a few years of untrammelled control. Lord help us if a Reform govt gets in in the way which I've put forward - the other parties will have legitimised their win by their own inertia and behaviour.
Aargh somehow managed to delete some words before posting to give bolleaux - should have read:
I think that much likelier than any of the scenarios outlined above, is that "FPTP-style UK democracy" will stagger on with govts elected on an ever-dwindling vote-share with an ever-dwindling turnout. So in 2029 Labour crawls back in with a small majority of 12 on a vote share of 20% on a turnout of 50%, and then in 2034 a government gets in on a vote share of 17% on a turnout of 40% etc etc. Politics-heads will scream about the unfair nature of such outcomes and rail against FPTP, but those in all the big Westminster parties will defend the system, refusing to make any changes because, hideously flawed though it is, it offers them at least a few years of untrammelled control. Lord help us if a Reform govt gets in in the way which I've put forward - the other parties will have legitimised their win by their own inertia and behaviour.
It would be quite funny watching Farage having to deal with the demands of all of the old Nazis who put him in power NHS and social care etc who want to be able to leave some cash to their families, by sponging off the state like all those boat people.
I did comment on the video on Youtube, but I wanted to say here too that it was a very interesting video. Much more interesting and reasoned and reasonable than I'd expect from a 'click-bait-y' title.
I don't think the scenario you outline is very likely (evidently, nor do you), but in this crazy world it's not completely stupid. As I said in my previous comment here, I think one of the main things counting against it is that it's not clear what the King would actually do to turn things around with the power he'd have.
It's beyond the scope of your article / video, but presumably we'd only be in the situation you describe if 'all the parties had failed', the implication being that none of them were able to take controversial but necessary decisions - whatever they might be in practice. So a King that rode to the rescue of the country would quickly be faced with very difficult decisions, a very weak economy and a lot of social / political division...
I know this is really only in jest, but if the political parties all failed, I can't see the King knowing what to do about it. It's not like the problems would go away just because the government obtained power via other means.
I have sometimes wondered whether we should be benignly invaded by the Norwegians, and have a constitution imposed on us. Our own parties aren't up to the job.
But if the Norwegians invaded, most of the country wouldn't accept their rule. This is why, as kooky as it is in many ways, being ruled by the King is the only thing that would ever work, strictly because I can imagine so many people going, "Well, he was the King anyway, right? So we give him a little extra power, so what? Maybe he'll be up to the job!"
I think that much likelier than any of the scenarios outlined above, is that "FPTP ever-dwindling turnout. So in 2029 Labour crawls back in with a small majority of 12 on a vote share of 20% on a turnout of 50%, and then in 2034 a government gets in on a vote share of 17% on a turnout of 40% etc etc. Politics-heads will scream about the unfair nature of such outcomes and rail against FPTP, but those in all the Westminster parties will defend the system, refusing to make any changes because, hideously flawed though it is, it offers them at least a few years of untrammelled control. Lord help us if a Reform govt gets in in the way which I've put forward - the other parties will have legitimised their win by their own inertia and behaviour.
Aargh somehow managed to delete some words before posting to give bolleaux - should have read:
I think that much likelier than any of the scenarios outlined above, is that "FPTP-style UK democracy" will stagger on with govts elected on an ever-dwindling vote-share with an ever-dwindling turnout. So in 2029 Labour crawls back in with a small majority of 12 on a vote share of 20% on a turnout of 50%, and then in 2034 a government gets in on a vote share of 17% on a turnout of 40% etc etc. Politics-heads will scream about the unfair nature of such outcomes and rail against FPTP, but those in all the big Westminster parties will defend the system, refusing to make any changes because, hideously flawed though it is, it offers them at least a few years of untrammelled control. Lord help us if a Reform govt gets in in the way which I've put forward - the other parties will have legitimised their win by their own inertia and behaviour.
It would be quite funny watching Farage having to deal with the demands of all of the old Nazis who put him in power NHS and social care etc who want to be able to leave some cash to their families, by sponging off the state like all those boat people.
He would distract them by blaming and persecuting those further down the food chain - straight from the fascist playbook
I did comment on the video on Youtube, but I wanted to say here too that it was a very interesting video. Much more interesting and reasoned and reasonable than I'd expect from a 'click-bait-y' title.
I don't think the scenario you outline is very likely (evidently, nor do you), but in this crazy world it's not completely stupid. As I said in my previous comment here, I think one of the main things counting against it is that it's not clear what the King would actually do to turn things around with the power he'd have.
It's beyond the scope of your article / video, but presumably we'd only be in the situation you describe if 'all the parties had failed', the implication being that none of them were able to take controversial but necessary decisions - whatever they might be in practice. So a King that rode to the rescue of the country would quickly be faced with very difficult decisions, a very weak economy and a lot of social / political division...
I know this is really only in jest, but if the political parties all failed, I can't see the King knowing what to do about it. It's not like the problems would go away just because the government obtained power via other means.
I have sometimes wondered whether we should be benignly invaded by the Norwegians, and have a constitution imposed on us. Our own parties aren't up to the job.
But if the Norwegians invaded, most of the country wouldn't accept their rule. This is why, as kooky as it is in many ways, being ruled by the King is the only thing that would ever work, strictly because I can imagine so many people going, "Well, he was the King anyway, right? So we give him a little extra power, so what? Maybe he'll be up to the job!"
What? A King who's even more hardcore on Net Zero than Milliband, more open borders than Johnson and Starmer?
Remind me what happened to his namesake Charles I again?
Agree. The problem is the people who don't like Starmer are going to like Charles being in charge even less.
Well I hope he has modern views on constitutional reform. The Windsors have quite a few landed gentry friends in the House of Lords don't they?