Well that article just sold me on Starmer's plan. Sounds pretty good to be fair, and I don't particularly like Starmer. Also the opening lines are too funny no

Well that article just sold me on Starmer's plan. Sounds pretty good to be fair, and I don't particularly like Starmer. Also the opening lines are too funny not to comment on: "In theory, Britain is the most democratic country in the world. There has never been any limit to what an elected Parliament and a royal signature can do." In political science the UK system is referred to as an 'elected dictatorship'. That lack of 'limit' to what the representatives do is anti-democratic. They don't need to stick to manifesto policies, they rarely do. They're not held accountable either. The public is quite happy to vote for populist policies, not have any of them acted on, watch a scandal sink the current PM, watch a small group of party 'members' vote a new one in, and carry on. We need checks and balances, we need a constitution, we need stronger third parties, better voting systems, less inequality between the poor and the rich (migrants included). This actually seems like a sensible step towards that. Not perfect by any means, but there likely isn't a perfect system. And then to add 'royal signature' to the claim of being the 'most democratic country in the world'. Absolutely mad. Inheriting such power purely by virtue of blood or marriage, that's democracy? This person has drunk the Kool-aid and asked for more.