I’m 55 and the country has never been so divided in my life. Of course, we have seen social unrest such as through the 1980s however that didn’t feel as visceral. The majority of the unrest, up until the mid-90s, was based around competing ideologies – effectively to maintain or take apart the post war consensus. From the mid 90s we had a decade of relative social peace and then we had the credit crunch and things have spiralled out of control since then.
The age of disinformation, misinformation or indeed no information are upon us and are allowing peoples positions to be largely driven by emotions. Much of this is of course orchestrated as always by those with vested interests however they can now operate beyond countries shores manipulating social media with large budgets to achieve their desired outcomes. Setting one group against another through tactics like deflection and othering.
We have seen last week, in the Manchester by election, these very things in action. The Green parties drug policy being twisted and spun massively from the reality and weaponised with no consideration for expert opinion or the fact that carrying on has we have for decades with the criminalisation of street drugs has failed. Polling data that is not applicable or has significant errors and omissions being used by all sides to try and influence people’s votes.
Then we have the ongoing Epstein saga. One that has led to the arrest of a Prince Andrew and Peter Mandelson. Prince Andrews whose position within the monarchy and our constitution placed him in a position to carry out the alleged offences. Like wise Mandelson, Lord of the realm and privy counsellor, having his numerous indiscretions overlooked to put him in a position of power once again.
Our constitution has failed to protect the public interest again and again. This should be no surprise; the constitution was developed by the establishment and wealthy in order to protect the establishment and wealthy. The constitution left deliberately vague and uncodified and relying on the “good chap” principle which has been eroded and decayed over decades culminating in Boris Johnson lying to the monarch in order to illegally prorogue parliament.
The constitution is a cosy arrangement giving vast unscrutinised powers to the government through monarch’s prerogative and the shadowy privy council in exchange for the monarchy being given a life of unfettered luxury again without any effective scrutiny. Just this week we have seen the bizarre restrictions placed on our MPs regarding even discussing the monarchy as one of its members stands accused of acting against Britain’s interests.
So how do we move forward, improve our democracy, remove malignant influences, and better protect the majority of the people instead of the elite few. It has to be done by revisiting our constitution so that the people are better represented and protected.
There have been some minor tweaks to the constitution and indeed there are some going through parliament right now – votes for 16-year-olds, removing hereditary peers and tighter controls on foreign donations. All are welcome but they are piecemeal and very slow. We need a big bang that the majority can embrace and allow us to move forward and flourish as a modern country.
Support for the monarchy is in decline and has been for a decade or more. A decade ago, support for maintaining the monarchy was at 75% plus. Its now averaging somewhere between 55-60% with several recent polls putting it below 50%. And that’s mostly before the recent crisis. Views around the monarchy are very polarised and divisive with huge support in the elderly and the younger generations increasingly preferring an alternative. With no signs of this decline in support reversing or indeed even stopping this division will only increase.
However, this gives us a unique opportunity to address our constitutional failings and allow a dignified and indeed lauded alternative for the members of the monarchy. Being that we are a constitutional monarchy any replacement of the monarchy will have fundamental impacts on the constitution.
My proposal is that King Charles acknowledges the decline in support for the monarchy and the necessity this creates for investigating alternatives. This would align with his recent comments that constitutional arrangements in Australia are a matter for the Australian people and extending that fact to the British people. In order to facilate this a people’s assembly will be created consisting of people from all regions, relevant experts such as constitutional and legal representatives, and be led by Charles and his advisors.
The objective would be to understand fundamental gaps and failings in our current constitution, develop alternatives to address those and a transition plan to a new constitution. These would be put to a referendum or more likely a series of referendums.
By doing this Charles establishes a legacy of leading a unifying process to put the country onto a better footing. If and when the time comes that the public indicate support for the monarchy is a minority, we have the template to smoothly and peacefully move to new arrangements. At that point the Windsor family would become very wealthy private citizens able to engage in philanthropic activities to the extent they desire. They would maintain great influence for decades as we have seen with ex-royal families in other European countries. Members of the public would be free to hold them in high regard if they wish.
Until that critical point is achieved there would be nothing to stop other proposals from the constitutional assembly which do not impact the country as a constitutional monarchy being implemented. This could cover such things as moving to an elected second chamber, changing the oaths for MPs and the military so those of a republican mindset are free to swear an allegiance to the people of the country etc.