OT- The Queen's Christmas Day Message to the Commonwealth

[MadAmster]

The whole idea is to prod them along an avoid a case like Belgium's.

... or Holland 2017. Elections in March and it took 208 days to form the coalition which has 76 seats to the opposition's 74.

[Romanis]

The Queen is not silent. She makes her position which is always to ensure a functioning govt through her PPS. This is far better than herself negotiating with party leaders. The leaders ensure they can command or appear to command confidence.

Of course she can and will reject advise if need be and use her Reserve Powers but that has not arisen thus far.

Anyway quick question(s).

Have any of you not sung the national anthem lately?
When attending events?

Have not sworn allegiance to the Crown when serving?

[Romanis]

And let me be clear I'm no fan of a lot of rubbish royalty.
It's very true of the Conservative party that I support that have a lot of snobbish royal hangers on. As if they are superior or some peers and Lords are 'noble and superior beings.'

The House of Lords should be scrapped and replaced with a Senate or just have 1 House.

Only the Monarch and her children should be royal. Only grandchildren born of the heir should retain royal status.

The rest should be commoners.

And yes knighthoods are a joke. Andy Murray knighted. Alex Ferguson and the list goes on

[ramAnag]

RamAnag..

Before you blame her for coalition govt consider this:

Can a President do something better?
Anywhere in the world, after an election coalitions have to be found to provide stable govt. No President can dictate to any leader as to which party they can or cannot combine with.
The whole idea is to prod them along an avoid a case like Belgium's.
The Queen's duty is to ensure a Govt is in place. It's not her duty to dictate who should be the Govt.
Her job is to ensure an MP enjoys the confidence of the Commons in forming that Govt.
If the voters do not give a party a majority, the Queen cannot simply invite a leader to form Govt until they can prove to her they enjoy the confidence of the House.
In 1974 she allowed Labour to take over until October before agreeing to fresh elections.
I think the behind the scenes roles is understated but successive PM's have spoken about the crucial role she plays in many matters including this.

The fact remains in 2010 she did not sanction another commission for Gordon Brown to continue as her PM.
He was unable to provide majority govt and duly advised her to send for Cameron.

Look up the Lascelles Principles that describe HM's roles

Rom...I’m not ‘blaming’ her at all for any coalition governments. In fact I’m not ‘blaming’ her for anything at all.
I’m sure she’s a lovely old lady...the nation’s grandmother if you like...and someone we’ve all got used to as she’s been on the throne for longer than most of us can remember.

All I’m asking is...do we still need a monarchy...is there still a place for an aristocratic hierarchy based on nothing other than inheritance and ‘accident of birth’? My opinion is...’no’...and it seems strange to me that in a country where alleged democratic values are considered sacrosanct we continue to have a completely unelected monarch.

It makes no sense to me and I doubt that the same loyalty you show to the Queen will be in evidence once Charles and Camilla inherit their respective crowns.

P.S. I don’t see a President as an alternative either and as KCG has pointed out elsewhere, there is no necessity for an added tier of Government.

[Romanis]

Not have a tier. Surely you jest. Who's gonna appoint? Who's gonna open Parliament? Who's gonna remove a bad govt? Who's gonna pardon and do loads of other duties?

And yes if Charles does his duty then why not?

[MadAmster]

Not have a tier. Surely you jest. Who's gonna appoint? Who's gonna open Parliament? Who's gonna remove a bad govt? Who's gonna pardon and do loads of other duties?

And yes if Charles does his duty then why not?

Change the rules so that, after an election, the path to follow is mapped out. Largest party, if no one party has a majority, gets first go. If they can't form a coalition, the 2nd largest etc. Just make it a list of "what happens" rather than have an unelected "puppet" decree what the current rules "state".

The speaker is supposed to be neutral, if you really feel the need to have someone open Parliament and "appoint" the PM, why not let that be the speaker following constitutional rules?

You don't need a Pres or Monarch.

[roger_ramjet]

The Queen is not silent. She makes her position which is always to ensure a functioning govt through her PPS. This is far better than herself negotiating with party leaders. The leaders ensure they can command or appear to command confidence.

Of course she can and will reject advise if need be and use her Reserve Powers but that has not arisen thus far.

Anyway quick question(s).

Have any of you not sung the national anthem lately?
When attending events?

Have not sworn allegiance to the Crown when serving?

Quick answers

1. I dont think Ive ever sung it, nor will I. Dreadful depressing dirge.

2. I am not a good tennis player and thus swear otfen when serving, but not sure what this has to do with the royal family.

3. There is no need for the queen to act as invigilator in establishing parliament. It can be done by any appointed civil servant with a few minutes training.

4. But I still think there is a role for the royal family in giving countless millions a warm fuzzy feeling. Royal weddings seem to make previously sensible people go all wobbly with joy. Royal funerals even more so - remember the massive outpourings of cathartic grief when the Queen of Tarts hit the tunnel wall. I dont remember seeing many flowers outside Harrods. Joe public "love 'em" and they dont do any harm, they dont cost much, they attract tourism and promote the country. Lets not let the jealous anti royal hardliners throw out something that gives pleasure to many people

[ramAnag]

Quick answers

1. I dont think Ive ever sung it, nor will I. Dreadful depressing dirge.

2. I am not a good tennis player and thus swear otfen when serving, but not sure what this has to do with the royal family.

3. There is no need for the queen to act as invigilator in establishing parliament. It can be done by any appointed civil servant with a few minutes training.

4. But I still think there is a role for the royal family in giving countless millions a warm fuzzy feeling. Royal weddings seem to make previously sensible people go all wobbly with joy. Royal funerals even more so - remember the massive outpourings of cathartic grief when the Queen of Tarts hit the tunnel wall. I dont remember seeing many flowers outside Harrods. Joe public "love 'em" and they dont do any harm, they dont cost much, they attract tourism and promote the country. Lets not let the jealous anti royal hardliners throw out something that gives pleasure to many people

I never sing the National Anthem (or Steve Bloomer’s Watching come to that) and it’s doubtful I ever will.
Neither have I ‘sworn allegiance’ lately...not since I was in the Cubs actually...I no longer believe in adults who dress oddly and call themselves Akela and Baloo either.
I will concede that the Americans seem to love Royal Weddings etc and say things like...’Ah’ll say one thing about you Brits boy...you sure know how to organaze a good wedding...that Diana or Kate (whoever, although oddly never Ann or Fergie) looked like a real Princess’...but it fails to fill me with pride or offer a justification for continuing with the monarchy.

[Manofpride]

England without a King or Queen would be like Derby without a Ram!

[MadAmster]

Can't remember the last time I sang the Anthem. Damned awful dirge it is, as my friend Yoda would say.

Allegiance? Probably in the game against those huggers of trees a couple of months back.......... Derby Till I Die.
The time before that would have been aged 11 when I joined the Grammar School Scout Troop.

As a new Cloggy I don't see me giving vent to "Wilhelmus van Nassauer" any time soon.