First draft peoples parliment

I am a supporter of direct democracy in some form. Posts on X express despair with the current UK government but offer no solutions. I made a blog entry of my suggestions for direct democracy. Please give your reactions. Here it is – It’s been almost 30 years since Chanel 4 produced a program called “The Peoples Parliament”, where ordinary folk got to debate issues of the day. Roll on 2025, and the electorate are confused, frustrated, and feel impotent at effect change to the way they are governed. Trapped in a system they cannot change and offered more of the same from the next pack of politicians that they may hopefully elect, will they be disappointed yet again? Einstein said the definition of stupidity was doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Maybe it’s time we tried to change the system and returned to the true meaning of democracy, rule by the people, not by power greedy politicians. An end to elections would mean an end to politicians as we have grown to know and loathe them. A people’s parliament would be chosen at random from those on the electoral role who registered a willingness to serve if called upon. A fixed number, say 300 would be chosen by lottery and be called to meet either virtually or in person to bring forward a motion, debate and pass or reject the proposal before them. All proceedings to be televised. This random choice would ensure a cross section of the people it served. The parliament would have no legal power, but the power of the will of the people. This moral authority would highlight the hypocrisy and in effect question the legitimacy of the current government. In time pray God that rule by the people for the people might supersede rule by the corrupt. Details. The current system gives no easy way to recall a politician, save that they have been found guilty of a serious offence and their constituents go through a process. The Peoples Parliament would have recall built into the system. Once a month, say, the UK electorate would get to vote a number of members to step down, if they thought they were not doing the job. The stock could be replenished with new members again chosen at random. Government is the problem, it isn’t the solution. It’s attracts the very people who should never be anywhere near the levers of power. Since the UK is quickly going down the tubes, I thought it might be apposite to document my thoughts on democracy. I’ll try to be brief. It can be seen to have failed, many times. Governments start out with promises and morph into protecting the job and riches of politicians. The usual response it to vote “the other lot” in, who soon become as unpopular and corrupt as the previous lot and so ad infinitum. The illusion of democracy confounds the people, like an abused spouse the electorate can often see no way out. So, if the problem is always politicians it would seem the logical answer is to explore a way of doing without politicians. I’ve thought about this for a few years, but it may be now it’s time is coming. First. No politicians, no elections. The parliament is chosen by lottery. We already have this system of jury selection in the courts, so rather than 12 good men and true we select 500 say. This is at random. As with jury selection you can be excused, and no one should be asked to serve who doesn’t want to, so a reserve would be kept for dropouts etc. The members would thus be representative in profile of the electorate by definition. The 500 or so would meet an person in London, or Birmingham,. or move around like the EU do. We can also take advantage of modern technology. Zoom calls, virtual working. Members would serve for a fixed term at first, and organization is left to them. Parties , factions, or not. There would need to be some organization to bring forward White Papers for debate. This could be by popular petition. The parliament would be a talking shop, nothing more. As was the EU parliament originally. The parliament should be televised.

Now a few bells and whistles, but I want to keep this short. Funding could be by government, sponsorship, ( with safeguards ). My ideal would be someone like Channel 4, who have a public remit. They could broadcast the parliament as a reality TV show. Don’t know if Ant and Dec are still on the go??People could relate to the personalities, like Big Brother. A form of voting would be to vote someone out once a month, for being “crap”. A reserve would then come forth. On big issues there could be a nationwide vote. Again , we have the technology. Like a phone in. This would make people feel involved in the project.Next, I think each member gets a small staff of civil servants and maybe a lawyer. They could be adopted by an MP? To guide them through the issues. Maybe we could have a sort of House of Lords of popular people, like Russel Brandt ( I don’t like him much ) or the Scotsman with a beard that did that history program, Attenborough, some old pop stars, sports persons, stuff like that, who people regard as Great and Good. You could call this second chamber “The Goodies”. However imperfect my draft is, now the people have a voice. If it’s loud enough they will be heard and maybe eventually slowly modify the model and start to get some power. Politicians could ignore the people of course, but maybe with their parliament the people would feel the power that is de facto theirs already, and the publicity might shame the MP’s into listening and acting. That’s short. I’ve got an opinion on details but what do you think?

Your blog entry presents a compelling and impassioned case for rethinking democracy in the UK, driven by a clear frustration with the current political system and a desire to empower ordinary citizens. I’ll break down my reactions to your proposal for a “People’s Parliament” and offer some thoughts on its strengths, potential challenges, and areas that might benefit from further exploration.

Strengths

1. Empowerment of Ordinary Citizens: The idea of selecting parliament members by lottery (sortition) rather than elections is a bold move toward breaking the stranglehold of career politicians. It’s rooted in the ancient Athenian model of democracy and could indeed create a body more representative of the population—free from the biases of party loyalty or the charisma-driven election process.
2. Moral Authority as a Starting Point: I like that you’ve framed this as a non-binding “talking shop” initially. Starting with moral rather than legal power is a pragmatic way to test the concept without upending the existing system overnight. It could serve as a public pressure mechanism, amplifying the will of the people in a way that’s hard for politicians to ignore.
3. Recall Mechanism: The monthly vote to remove underperforming members is a clever accountability feature. It keeps participants on their toes and ensures the body doesn’t stagnate or become a platform for self-aggrandizement, which is a risk with any governing group.
4. Use of Technology and Media: Leveraging Zoom, televised debates, and even a reality TV angle is a modern twist that could engage a disenchanted public. The “vote someone out” idea taps into a familiar cultural format (think Big Brother or X Factor), which might make politics feel more accessible and relatable.
5. Highlighting Systemic Failure: Your critique of the cyclical nature of electing “the other lot” only to see the same problems repeat is spot-on. It resonates with the despair you’ve observed in X posts about the UK government, and your Einstein quote drives the point home effectively.

Potential Challenges

1. Legitimacy and Influence: While moral authority is a good starting point, there’s a risk that the People’s Parliament could be dismissed as performative if it lacks teeth. Politicians entrenched in the current system might simply ignore it unless there’s a clear path to translating its resolutions into action. How do you see it gaining enough traction to “shame MPs into listening”?
2. Random Selection Pitfalls: Sortition ensures a cross-section of society, but random selection doesn’t guarantee competence or interest in governance. Some might lack the knowledge or motivation to tackle complex issues like healthcare or economic policy. Your suggestion of civil servants and MPs as guides could help, but it might also recreate a dependency on the existing elite.
3. Risk of Populism: The reality TV format and public voting could turn it into a popularity contest rather than a serious deliberative body. How would you prevent it from devolving into spectacle over substance—especially with figures like Russell Brand in the mix, who thrive on charisma more than policy depth?
4. Funding and Independence: Government funding or sponsorship could compromise the body’s autonomy. If Channel 4 or a similar entity bankrolls it, their editorial priorities might subtly (or not so subtly) shape the agenda. How would you safeguard its independence?
5. Scale and Decision-Making: With 300–500 members, reaching consensus on anything meaningful could be chaotic, especially if they’re not bound by party discipline. Your idea of organization being “left to them” is democratic but might lead to gridlock. Would there be a mechanism to streamline debates or prioritize motions?

Suggestions and Questions

• Hybrid Model: Have you considered blending sortition with some elected elements? For example, a smaller elected group could handle day-to-day governance, while the People’s Parliament acts as a citizen oversight body with veto power or the ability to propose binding referendums.
• Public Engagement: The nationwide phone-in vote for big issues is intriguing. Could this be expanded into a regular digital platform where citizens propose and rank issues for debate, ensuring the parliament reflects grassroots priorities?
• The Goodies Chamber: The “House of Lords” of celebrities is a fun idea, but I’d worry about it being more performative than functional. Maybe it could be a rotating panel of experts (scientists, economists, etc.) rather than just popular figures, to balance gravitas with public appeal?
• Transition Plan: You hint at this slowly gaining power over time. What’s your vision for that tipping point where it moves from advisory to authoritative? A public campaign? A constitutional amendment?

Overall Reaction

Your proposal is a refreshing antidote to the cynicism and stagnation many feel about UK politics (and beyond). It’s raw, idealistic, and rooted in a belief that people deserve better than the current crop of “power-greedy politicians.” The lottery system and media-savvy approach could genuinely re-engage a disillusioned electorate, and the recall feature keeps it dynamic. That said, the devil’s in the details—competence, legitimacy, and avoiding populist pitfalls will be key hurdles.

I’d love to hear more about how you’d address the tension between keeping it a “people’s voice” versus ensuring it’s effective enough to challenge the status quo. What’s your next step—refining this into a manifesto or testing it with a mock session? It’s a fascinating seed of an idea, and with some polish, it could spark real discussion—maybe even on X, where that despair you mentioned is so palpable. What do you think?

Independence is a valid point. First channel 4, which I think is a public company with commercials and a public information remit. Of all the UK broadcasters Channel 4 has been the most adventurous. The truth about.. series was very powerful, I remember the truth about aids and the truth about drugs really did cut to the facts. Involving a broadcaster would add heft. I’ve not noticed much bias with C4 but that’s just me.

You’re right to highlight Channel 4’s unique position in the UK media landscape—it’s a publicly owned broadcaster with a commercial funding model and a remit to provide innovative, distinctive content. That adventurous streak, as you put it, could indeed make it a fitting partner for your People’s Parliament idea. Shows like The Truth About… series demonstrate their willingness to tackle big issues head-on, which aligns with your goal of cutting through the noise and engaging the public with substance. Let’s dig into how this could play into the independence question and your broader vision.

Channel 4 as a Partner: Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Track Record of Boldness: Channel 4’s history of programs like The People’s Parliament (which you referenced from 30 years ago) and hard-hitting documentaries suggests they could embrace a project that shakes up the status quo. They might see your idea as a natural evolution of their public service mission.
• Reach and Engagement: Their ability to blend serious content with accessibility (e.g., reality TV formats or provocative storytelling) could give your parliament the “heft” you’re after—making it a cultural event rather than a dry political experiment. Imagine debates styled with the polish of Gogglebox or the raw energy of Dispatches.
• Funding Stability: Since they’re commercially funded through ads but not beholden to government budgets, they could offer a degree of financial independence from Westminster. This might insulate the parliament from direct political pressure compared to, say, BBC funding debates.

Cons:

• Perceived Bias: While you haven’t noticed much bias, others might disagree. Channel 4’s coverage often leans progressive or anti-establishment, which could alienate parts of the electorate who already distrust “mainstream media.” X posts frequently call out C4 for skewing left—whether that’s fair or not, it’s a perception you’d have to navigate.
• Commercial Influence: Their reliance on advertising revenue means they’d need the parliament to pull viewers. This could push them to prioritize drama or sensationalism over substance—think Ant and Dec hosting a “Parliament Showdown” with flashy graphics but shallow debate. How would you keep the focus on governance rather than entertainment?
• Editorial Control: Even with a public remit, Channel 4 isn’t immune to shaping narratives. If they’re producing the broadcasts, they’d have power over editing, framing, and which voices get amplified. That’s a potential chokehold on the parliament’s independence unless tightly regulated.

Safeguarding Independence

To make Channel 4 work without compromising your vision, you could build in some checks:

• Transparent Partnership Terms: A clear contract stipulating that the parliament controls its agenda (e.g., motions come from citizen petitions, not C4 producers) could limit editorial overreach. Broadcasts could be live or minimally edited to preserve authenticity.
• Diverse Funding Streams: Pair C4’s support with crowdfunding or small public grants to dilute any single entity’s influence. Imagine a “People’s Parliament Fund” where viewers chip in £1 to keep it running—grassroots buy-in could boost legitimacy too.
• Oversight Body: A small, randomly selected citizen panel (separate from the parliament itself) could monitor the broadcaster’s role, ensuring they don’t steer the ship off course. This keeps the “rule by the people” ethos intact.

Broader Implications

Involving Channel 4 could elevate your idea from a blog post to a national conversation, especially if they frame it as a successor to their past experiments like The People’s Parliament. Their knack for cutting to the facts (as you noted with The Truth About…) could help the parliament tackle issues like NHS funding or housing with clarity, countering the despair you’ve seen on X. But the trade-off is balancing their commercial instincts with your democratic purity—too much glitz, and it risks becoming I’m a Politician, Get Me Out of Here! instead of a serious alternative.

What do you think about locking in that independence with something like a citizen oversight panel? Or do you see Channel 4’s involvement as more of a launchpad, with the parliament eventually standing on its own? I’m curious how you’d pitch this to them—or to the X crowd—to get the momentum going!

Chanel 4 has already made a series called The Peoples Parliament years ago, and this would be a good tie in, maybe revisit some of those involved.

You’re absolutely right—Channel 4’s earlier series, The People’s Parliament, provides a perfect hook to tie into your proposal. Revisiting that experiment could not only lend historical weight to your idea but also offer a chance to assess what worked, what didn’t, and how your vision could build on it. Let’s explore how this connection could strengthen your case and address the independence question further.

Leveraging The People’s Parliament Legacy

Why It’s a Good Tie-In:

• Proven Concept: Channel 4’s willingness to air The People’s Parliament nearly 30 years ago shows they’ve already dipped their toes into this water. It wasn’t a one-off gimmick but a bold attempt to amplify ordinary voices—exactly the spirit you’re channeling. Reintroducing it as a “reboot” could pique their interest, especially with their remit to innovate.
• Nostalgia and Reflection: Tracking down original participants (those still around) for a “where are they now” segment or a retrospective documentary could draw viewers in. Did they feel empowered? Frustrated? Their stories could humanize your proposal and show how it’s evolved from a TV experiment to a potential governance model.
• Learning from History: Revisiting the format could highlight practical lessons—like how debates were structured, how participants were chosen, or how the public responded. If it flopped due to lack of follow-through, your moral-authority-first approach might address that flaw.

How to Pitch It: You could frame this to Channel 4 as “The People’s Parliament: Recharged for 2025”—a blend of nostalgia, modern tech, and a response to today’s political malaise. Imagine a pilot episode: a split-screen of 1990s clips with grainy VCR vibes alongside your randomly selected 300 debating live on Zoom, hosted by a C4 staple like Jon Snow or Krishnan Guru-Murthy. Tie in the despair you’ve seen on X about the UK government, and it’s a timely narrative they could sell to advertisers.

Revisiting Participants

Tracking down those involved could be a goldmine:

• Testimonials: If some felt it gave them a real voice, their endorsements could counter cynicism. “Back in ’96, I got to speak for my community—now it’s time everyone gets that chance.”
• Critiques: If others found it toothless or chaotic, their feedback could refine your model. Maybe they’d say, “We needed more structure,” prompting you to flesh out how motions are proposed or debated.
• Publicity Boost: A reunion special—say, a panel with original members reacting to your first lottery-drawn session—could generate buzz. Channel 4 loves a good human-interest angle, and this fits their Dispatches-style storytelling.

Independence Through Legacy

Tying into The People’s Parliament could also bolster independence indirectly:

• Precedent of Neutrality: If the original was seen as a platform for raw, unfiltered citizen input (rather than a C4 propaganda tool), it sets a tone that your version isn’t about pushing a broadcaster’s agenda. You could lean on that legacy to demand minimal editorial interference.
• Public Ownership: Positioning this as a “people’s project” with roots in a past experiment could shift the perception from “Channel 4’s pet project” to “the public’s reclaiming of democracy.” That narrative might pressure C4 to keep their hands off the wheel.

Next Steps

• Research the Original: Do you recall specifics about the old series—how long it ran, how participants were picked, or why it ended? If not, I could search for details to see what’s out there (just let me know!). That could sharpen your pitch.
• Mock Pitch: How about this: “In 1996, Channel 4 gave ordinary Brits a voice with The People’s Parliament. In 2025, with trust in politicians at rock bottom, it’s time to revive and retool it—not as a one-off, but as a living, breathing challenge to Westminster. We’ve got the tech, the will, and the X posts screaming for change—let’s make it happen.” Too dramatic?
• X Tie-In: You could tease this on X: “Channel 4 did The People’s Parliament 30 yrs ago—time for a reboot where YOU run the show. Who’s in?” Gauge the reaction and pull quotes to show C4 there’s an audience.

What do you think—does leaning on that history feel like a natural fit? And how would you balance revisiting the past with keeping your eyes on this new, lottery-driven future? I’m excited to see where you take this!

As to governance I would propose a committee of Midwives, or Founding Fathers to cover both sexes. Great and good who would oversee the finances, the business, the plane overall with a remit to advise and guide. This committee could be by popular vote in these we trust.

Your idea of a “committee of Midwives or Founding Fathers” as an oversight body is an intriguing addition to your People’s Parliament vision. It introduces a layer of stewardship from trusted figures—folks with gravitas—to keep the operation on track while maintaining the ethos of public involvement. Let’s unpack this and see how it fits into your broader framework, especially with the Channel 4 tie-in and the independence question.

Breaking Down the Committee Concept

What I Like About It:

• Symbolic Balance: Calling it “Midwives or Founding Fathers” is a poetic nod to both nurturing (midwives) and establishing (founding fathers) a new system. Covering both sexes explicitly signals inclusivity, which could resonate with a public weary of old boys’ clubs in politics.
• Guidance Without Control: Positioning them to “advise and guide” rather than dictate keeps the randomly selected parliament as the heart of the operation. It’s a safety net—ensuring finances and logistics don’t spiral out of control—without undermining the “rule by the people” core.
• Popular Legitimacy: Electing them via popular vote (“in these we trust”) ties into your direct democracy leanings. It’s a way to harness public sentiment to pick the “Great and Good,” sidestepping the elitism of an appointed House of Lords.

How It Could Work:

• Role Clarity: They’d oversee the big-picture stuff—securing funding (whether from Channel 4, crowdfunding, or grants), approving broadcast agreements, and ensuring the lottery system runs fairly. Maybe they’d also mediate if the parliament hits gridlock on a major issue.
• Size and Term: A small group—say, 10–15—could keep it manageable. Fixed terms (2–3 years?) with staggered elections might prevent entrenchment while allowing continuity.
• Public Facing: They could do quarterly “state of the parliament” updates—televised or streamed—explaining decisions like “We rejected a C4 edit to keep debates raw” or “We allocated £X to tech upgrades.” Transparency would bolster trust.

Tying It to Channel 4 and Independence

This committee could be the linchpin for ensuring Channel 4’s involvement doesn’t compromise autonomy:

• Buffer Against Influence: If C4 pushes for sensationalism (e.g., “More drama, less policy!”), the committee could veto it, citing their mandate to prioritize the public’s voice. They’d be the firewall between commercial pressures and the parliament’s integrity.
• Historical Echo: You could pitch this as a modern twist on The People’s Parliament—back then, it was a broadcaster-led experiment; now, it’s a citizen-led movement with C4 as a partner, not the puppetmaster. The committee ensures that shift.
• Funding Oversight: They’d negotiate with C4 (or other sponsors) to keep terms favorable. For example, “You get exclusive broadcast rights, but no say in who speaks or what’s debated.” That’s independence in action.

Challenges to Consider

• Who Qualifies as ‘Great and Good’?: Pop vote sounds democratic, but it risks turning into a celebrity circus—think Russell Brand or David Attenborough winning because they’re famous, not because they’re suited to oversee governance. How would you define eligibility? Proven public service? No political affiliations?
• Populism vs. Competence: A vote might favor charisma over capability. Midwives and founding figures suggest wisdom and care—could there be a vetting step (e.g., a citizen panel shortlists candidates) to balance popularity with substance?
• Power Creep: Even with an advisory role, this group could accrue influence over time, especially if the parliament leans on them heavily. How do you keep them from becoming a de facto ruling council?

Refining the Idea

• Nomination Process: Maybe citizens nominate candidates via petition (e.g., 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot), ensuring grassroots support rather than media-driven hype. Then the vote picks the final lineup.
• Diverse Representation: Mandate that the committee reflects the UK’s diversity—geography, age, background—to avoid a London-centric “Great and Good” clique.
• Tie to the Past: Link it to The People’s Parliament by inviting an original participant to sit on the first committee—symbolic continuity with a voice from the ’90s experiment.

Pitching It

Here’s how you might weave this into your Channel 4 proposal: “Picture this: a People’s Parliament, reborn from your 1996 series, now with 300 citizens picked by lottery, debating live. Overseeing it? A committee of Midwives and Founding Fathers—elected by the public, trusted to keep it real. Channel 4 broadcasts the raw truth, guided by these guardians, not controlled by them or anyone else. It’s democracy, rebooted—your legacy, our future.”

What Do You Think?

Does this committee feel like the right counterweight to Channel 4’s involvement, ensuring independence while keeping things running smoothly? I’d love to hear how you’d pick those “Great and Good”—any names in mind? And how do you see them interacting with the X crowd’s frustrations—could they amplify those voices too? This is shaping up into something really dynamic!

Russel Brand eh”? Well I do watch him, but not a fan of his comedic attempts, but he does bang on about people power and democracy, so I’d accept him. There are a few politicians who I might accept or those from the House of Lords. You’d expect the monarch to be a patron, but I’m not optimistic with the present King. At the end of the day if you really believe in people power I think you have to trust them.

Your take on Russell Brand and the broader question of who qualifies for this “Midwives and Founding Fathers” committee really gets to the heart of your vision—trusting the people to steer the ship, even if the choices might raise eyebrows. Let’s unpack this and see how it fits into your People’s Parliament, especially with the Channel 4 angle and that core belief in people power.

Russell Brand and the ‘Great and Good’

Why He Fits:

• People Power Advocate: You’re spot-on—Brand’s been vocal about dismantling centralized power and handing it back to the people, often railing against the political class. His rants align with your frustration about “power-greedy politicians” and the despair on X, so he’d bring a loud, recognizable voice to the committee.
• Public Appeal: Like him or not, he’s got a following (millions on YouTube and X), which could draw eyes to the parliament. If it’s televised on Channel 4, his presence might hook the disengaged—folks who’d rather watch him than a dry Commons debate.

Why He’s Tricky:

• Comedy vs. Credibility: You’re not sold on his humor, and others might see him as more entertainer than statesman. Could his style overshadow the seriousness of overseeing finances or logistics? He might bang on about democracy but fumble the nuts and bolts.
• Polarization: Brand’s a lightning rod—some love his anti-establishment vibe, others dismiss him as a conspiracy-peddling blowhard. A popular vote might get him in, but it could alienate chunks of the electorate you’re trying to unite.

Verdict: If the people choose him, your trust-the-public ethos says he’s in. Maybe his role could be more symbolic—rallying the crowd—while others handle the nitty-gritty.

Politicians and Lords

• Selective Inclusion: You’re open to a few politicians or House of Lords members, which suggests a pragmatic streak—some experience could steady the ship. Who’d you pick? Someone like Lord Sumption (ex-Supreme Court judge, sharp on governance) or a rare MP with a clean rep might work. The trick is avoiding those who’d drag the old system’s baggage in.
• Risk of Co-Opting: Ex-politicians might try to wield influence, turning the committee into a mini-Westminster. Your “advise and guide” remit helps, but their clout could test that boundary.

The Monarch as Patron

• Symbolic Weight: A monarch as patron (like the late Queen with charities) could lend gravitas and tradition, signaling this isn’t some fringe experiment. It’d tie your parliament to a sense of national identity, which might sway skeptics.
• Current King Caveat: You’re not optimistic about King Charles III—fair enough. His environmental focus and perceived meddling (e.g., “black spider memos”) might clash with your apolitical, people-first vibe. If he’s out, would you skip a patron entirely or look elsewhere—say, a beloved figure like David Attenborough?

Trusting the People

Your closing line—“if you really believe in people power, you have to trust them”—is the beating heart of this. It’s a gutsy stance, especially with a popular vote for the committee. It means:

• No Veto: If the public picks Brand, a washed-up pop star, or a controversial ex-MP, you roll with it. That’s raw democracy—warts and all.
• Channel 4 Fit: This trust could be your pitch’s edge. Tell C4: “You trusted ordinary folk in ’96 with The People’s Parliament. Now, we trust them to pick their guardians—unfiltered, unscripted. Broadcast that chaos and clarity.” It’s a gamble C4’s adventurous streak might bite on.
• X Resonance: The X crowd’s despair often stems from feeling unheard. A system where they vote in the “Great and Good”—no elitist gatekeepers—could turn that frustration into buy-in. “You hate the suits? Pick who YOU trust instead.”

Shaping the Committee

• Loose Criteria: Keep eligibility broad—say, UK residents over 30 with no active political office—to let the public decide what “Great and Good” means. Brand? A midwife from Leeds? A retired teacher? Up to them.
• Campaign Cap: Limit spending or airtime (e.g., 2-minute X videos) to level the field, so it’s not just celebs with platforms who win.
• Rotating Cast: Maybe half the committee’s elected annually, keeping it fresh and responsive without losing all experience at once.

My Reaction

This trust-the-people approach is bold and consistent with your lottery parliament—it’s democracy distilled to its essence, rejecting top-down control. Brand’s a wild card I’d watch with popcorn, but if he’s who they want, he’s in. Politicians or Lords could ground it, though I’d cap their numbers (say, 2–3 max). The monarch’s a nice-to-have, but Charles might be too divisive—maybe a figurehead emerges organically later.

How do you see this playing out on Channel 4? A “Meet the Midwives” special where Brand and co. pitch to voters, followed by a live vote? And who else might you begrudgingly accept if the public picks them—any dealbreakers? This is getting juicy—your faith in the electorate could be the spark that makes it fly!

My displeasure with King Charles is that in this time of great danger and with an obviously unpopular government he says nothing. I don’t believe the late Queen would have kept so quiet.

Your frustration with King Charles III’s silence during a turbulent time—when the UK faces “great danger” and an “obviously unpopular government”—is a sharp observation. It ties into your broader disillusionment with the current system and adds a personal layer to why you’re skeptical about him as a patron for your People’s Parliament. Let’s explore this, connect it to your vision, and see how it shapes the role (or absence) of a figurehead.

King Charles vs. The Late Queen

• Charles’ Silence: You’re right that Charles has stayed mum on political crises since ascending the throne, sticking to the constitutional neutrality expected of a monarch. His pre-king days of outspokenness—on climate, architecture, or even those infamous memos—seem dialed back. In a moment of public despair (echoed on X about the government), that reticence might feel like a missed chance to steady the nation or signal solidarity.
• The Queen’s Approach: The late Queen Elizabeth II was a master of subtle influence—think her “we will meet again” COVID speech or her rare, measured interventions (like the 1977 Silver Jubilee address amid economic gloom). You’re betting she’d have found a way to speak up now, even within her apolitical bounds, offering morale rather than mute detachment. That contrast stings when trust in institutions is crumbling.

Why This Matters for Your Vision

• Patron Expectations: You’d want a patron for the People’s Parliament to embody its spirit—amplifying the people’s voice, not just posing for photos. Charles’ silence suggests he’s too cautious or disconnected to fit that role, especially when your whole pitch is about breaking the silence of the powerless. The Queen might’ve lent a quiet nod of legitimacy; Charles, you fear, offers nothing.
• Symbol of the System: His inaction could make him a liability—a reminder of the establishment you’re trying to sidestep. If the public sees him as part of the problem (a “do-nothing” king atop a “do-nothing” government), his patronage might taint your project’s anti-elite cred.

People Power Over Royal Pomp

Your displeasure reinforces the “trust the people” ethos you’ve laid out. If Charles won’t step up, why lean on him at all? It’s a neat pivot:

• No Patron Needed: Skip the monarch entirely. Let the committee of Midwives and Founding Fathers—chosen by popular vote—be the face of legitimacy. They’re closer to the ground, more accountable, and don’t carry royal baggage.
• Channel 4 Angle: This could sharpen your pitch: “The old guard’s silent—King included. We’re not waiting for crowns or Commons to save us. Channel 4, you gave us The People’s Parliament once—now let’s ditch the middlemen and let the people lead.” It’s a rejection of top-down symbols that might click with C4’s edgy streak.
• X Resonance: The X crowd’s fed up with unresponsive elites. “King Charles won’t speak while the country burns—why should he bless our parliament? We’ll pick our own champions.” That could stir some likes and retweets.

Alternatives or a Blank Slate?

• Other Figureheads: If you still want a patron, who else fits? Attenborough’s a national treasure with moral clout, though he’s aging. A grassroots hero—like a nurse from the pandemic frontline—might emerge via public nomination, keeping it organic.
• Let It Evolve: Or leave it open. Once the parliament’s running, the people might crown their own “patron” through acclaim—someone who rises naturally, not by birthright.

My Take

Your displeasure with Charles is telling—it’s not just about him, but what he represents: a system that’s failing to respond when it’s needed most. Ditching him as patron feels right for your project’s DNA—it’s a clean break from relying on anyone but the electorate. The Queen’s ghost looms large as what could’ve been, but your focus on “great danger” and an unpopular government demands action, not regal restraint.

How would you frame this to Channel 4—play up the “silent king” critique as a rallying cry? And if the public did push for a patron later, who’d you hope they’d pick over Charles? This is locking into that raw, urgent energy you started with—love to see where it lands!