UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[Joe Republic]

_{*The easier way to avoid this situation would have been to have the funeral on a Saturday, as was actually done the last time we had a State Funeral in Britain (Churchill in 1965), the last time we had a public funeral as major as this one (Diana in 1997), and the last time we had a funeral for a senior member of the Royal Family (Prince Philip last year). Curious.}

George VI's funeral was on a Friday.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Again, there's nothing but long-standing convention keeping King Charles from expressing his political opinions. The guy pays all the taxes he's legally required to, why shouldn't he express his opinions on subjects he cares about?

Nothing but convention? Nothing but?! The Constitution is a series of Conventions!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

_{*The easier way to avoid this situation would have been to have the funeral on a Saturday, as was actually done the last time we had a State Funeral in Britain (Churchill in 1965), the last time we had a public funeral as major as this one (Diana in 1997), and the last time we had a funeral for a senior member of the Royal Family (Prince Philip last year). Curious.}

George VI's funeral was on a Friday.

Yes. Interestingly when not on Saturdays they have tended to be on Fridays or Tuesdays. Friday would generally be the least impactful day of the working week, while Tuesday is a fairly traditional pick for a funeral date, for reasons I've never been entirely sure of. Victoria's funeral was on a Monday though: I suppose there's a chance that someone thought echoing that would be clever. Of course it was famously a complete fiasco.

[Torrain]

Again, there's nothing but long-standing convention keeping King Charles from expressing his political opinions. The guy pays all the taxes he's legally required to, why shouldn't he express his opinions on subjects he cares about?

Filuwaúrdjan has already made the point, but remember, we unironically subscribe to the following maxim:

The real Constitution was the friends conventions we made along the way.

[MaxQue]

Well yes but consider those of us who’d have to listen to his views on town planning!

What is the problem with his views on town planning?

[nicholas.slaydon]

Well yes but consider those of us who’d have to listen to his views on town planning!

What is the problem with his views on town planning?

Nothing at all in my opinion. I think he's got the right idea about architecture and urban planning in general.

[CumbrianLefty]

The problem is that having public p political views very quickly devolves into the Monarch picking sides when a Government is being formulated- it’s worth remembering George V played a huge role in creating the National Government in the 1930s.

The powers we give to the Monarch are so vast- the ability to dissolve Parliament, dismiss Ministers, appoint virtually every senior official and command the armed forces, that we really don’t want them engaged in a political battle with the Government especially when 50% of the time it would be with a Labour Government.

These "powers" are largely theoretical in practice - that is why there was talk of a "constituional crisis" in the summer when Johnson was (metaphorically) threatening to barricade himself into number 10.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Again, there's nothing but long-standing convention keeping King Charles from expressing his political opinions. The guy pays all the taxes he's legally required to, why shouldn't he express his opinions on subjects he cares about?

Filuwaúrdjan has already made the point, but remember, we unironically subscribe to the following maxim:

The real Constitution was the friends conventions we made along the way.

We have a vibes-based constitutional order. Which, rather insanely, seems to work, somehow.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Interesting and pretty funny article I thought and one piece that stuck out to me,

But there is also something more sinister brewing here. Hospital appointments on the day of the queen’s funeral are cancelled. Food banks are closed. Normal people’s funerals are also cancelled. On the day the queen died, Liz Truss, our new prime minister, quietly lifted the ban on fracking in this country and also announced a plan to relieve Britons of crippling energy bills this winter without explaining where that money is going to come from. I’m not suggesting that anybody offed the queen early for political expediency, but parliament will now be closed for a month: again, to respect the dead queen.

Yeahhh. All of this, despite the genuine affection I realize many people (hell, even myself as an American) had for Lizzie really stinks of the archaic energy of monarchy. But I digress.

The important thing to note is that these decisions were taken by the government, not by the King or even 'the Palace'. Rather amusingly it has already been briefed that he does not approve of everyone going full Stop All The Clocks over his mother's death and that the decision to call a Bank Holiday at very short notice (which has caused the largest amount of disruption, particularly in the health service)* was entirely down to the government - which, of course, it has to have been. It is certainly possible that a new administration is trying (rather ineptly and it would seem not particularly successfully) to use the Queen's death and funeral for political ends, but that would not be on the monarchy itself, either as an institution or as a general principle.

N.B. on fracking we can be... aha... reasonably sure that our new monarch is not a massive fan. Not that he can do anything other than complain in private, but it means that joining the dots, again, leads to political decisions by the elected government, not the institution of the monarchy (whatever you think of it).

Again, there's nothing but long-standing convention keeping King Charles from expressing his political opinions. The guy pays all the taxes he's legally required to, why shouldn't he express his opinions on subjects he cares about?

I rather think that not expressing their opinions on matters is a detriment to the popularity of European Royalty. If King Charles actively engaged in promoting good things such as environmental protections and so forth, on issues he has a passion for, and actively engaged in keeping His Government's feet to the fire, the public would, I think, thank him for it.

I'm sure they'd also appreciate his last lobbying for homeopathic woo.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183835609534466

lmao

[If my soul was made of stone]

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183835609534466

lmao

[LabourJersey]

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183835609534466

lmao

If he's charged does he get extradited? Honestly not sure of the implications here.

[afleitch]

Some concerning events in Leicester recently which aren't being 'elaborated' on by the press. Which is probably write damaging in the short term.

[Lechasseur]

Some concerning events in Leicester recently which aren't being 'elaborated' on by the press. Which is probably write damaging in the short term.

What's going on in Leicester?

[Lechasseur]

Well yes but consider those of us who’d have to listen to his views on town planning!

What is the problem with his views on town planning?

Nothing at all in my opinion. I think he's got the right idea about architecture and urban planning in general.

Yep I agree

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some concerning events in Leicester recently which aren't being 'elaborated' on by the press. Which is probably write damaging in the short term.

What's going on in Leicester?

Communal violence in the eastern end of the city. It's hard to be sure of many details because the reporting has been so patchy and vague, which is neither good nor helpful. The BBC have suggested a correlation between a 20/20 Cricket match between India and Pakistan at the end of August.* Wouldn't be the first time, but this is nastier than usual.

_{*Leicester's Muslims are largely Gujarati in origin - thus 'Indian' on the census rather than 'Pakistani' - but Cricket support is often not really about nationality for obvious reasons.}

[Coldstream]

The problem is that having public p political views very quickly devolves into the Monarch picking sides when a Government is being formulated- it’s worth remembering George V played a huge role in creating the National Government in the 1930s.

The powers we give to the Monarch are so vast- the ability to dissolve Parliament, dismiss Ministers, appoint virtually every senior official and command the armed forces, that we really don’t want them engaged in a political battle with the Government especially when 50% of the time it would be with a Labour Government.

I like the optimism!

[Coldstream]

Some concerning events in Leicester recently which aren't being 'elaborated' on by the press. Which is probably write damaging in the short term.

What's going on in Leicester?

Communal violence in the eastern end of the city. It's hard to be sure of many details because the reporting has been so patchy and vague, which is neither good nor helpful. The BBC have suggested a correlation between a 20/20 Cricket match between India and Pakistan at the end of August.* Wouldn't be the first time, but this is nastier than usual.

_{*Leicester's Muslims are largely Gujarati in origin - thus 'Indian' on the census rather than 'Pakistani' - but Cricket support is often not really about nationality for obvious reasons.}

The RSS street gang are alleged to be involved on the Hindu side. But I’d be wary of overreacting to this *yet*. From what I’ve heard from people in Leicester it’s more akin to Belfast style marching than the open warfare some people are describing it as. Though I think it has the potential to turn very nasty very quickly.

It’s also not a purely “Leicester” problem, since people seem to be coming in from Birmingham and farther afield to join in, which increases the chance of it turning violent.

[ηєω ƒяσηтιєя]

Back into the fray for Truss tomorrow. The solemnity and pageantry due to QEII's death is now over.

[Torrain]

The situation in Leicester seems reminiscent of Glasgow, with the sectarian angle to key sporting fixtures, and the associated marching. Not to bring everything back to Scotland - but we do seem to have a fair bit of experience with performative sectarianism, mirroring our neighbours in Belfast. 

[NewYorkExpress]

https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1571183835609534466
lmao

At this rate, Liz Truss might have the shortest occupancy at #10 Downing street in history.

[CumbrianLefty]

It’s also not a purely “Leicester” problem, since people seem to be coming in from Birmingham and farther afield to join in, which increases the chance of it turning violent.

Police now seem to think a majority of the trouble makers are not local, shocked I am and no mistake.

[Torrain]

I'm report-writing from home this week, so put BBC Parliament on in the background during the swearing-in. Fairly diverse, at least compared to some of our neighbours. Lots of Welsh, .

Fairly diverse set of religious texts for the swearing-in (alongside the ever-popular non-religious affirmation). So far we've had the King James Bible, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Jerusalem Bible (includes the Apocrypha), a Welsh Bible, and an Old Testament.

We've still got some sectarian issues in this country, but I'm glad that there's no MTG-type in Parliament taking umbrage with the diversity of belief, non-belief, and holy texts on display.

MP-specific anecdotes:

• Chris Bryant was cracking very niche jokes about the specific biblical translations available, which seems on brand.
• Tim Farron, also very on brand, takes the non-religious affirmation, quoting Matthew 5:37 ("let your yes be yes, and your no be no...") as his explanation.
• Jim Shannon (DUP) snuck in some Ulster Scots, the only MP to do so
• Naz Shah continued her personal tradition of wearing hijab to the swearing in (she doesn't in day-to-day life), reasoning that taking the oath is an act of prayer, and she would always wear a headscarf for that. Which is an interesting theological point I hadn't considered.

[Conservatopia]

Tim Farron, also very on brand, takes the non-religious affirmation, quoting Matthew 5:37 ("let your yes be yes, and your no be no...") as his explanation. [/li][/list]

This is what I would do if I were an MP too. It's ironic that taking the oath is supposedly the "religious" option but that those of us who are more fundamentalist don't do so and instead affirm along with the irreligious.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Meanwhile there are scores of Conservative MPs who are about as religious as Lenin's corpse who nevertheless always chose to be sworn in (and usually on the KJV) because it's what's done, old chap. Which is related to the main reason why Truss's Reading at the Queen's funeral was as amusingly poor as it was: she's not religious (even if she now, frankly pointlessly, claims to be vaguely Anglican. Who buys this? And why even bother?), did not have a religious background growing up and was not exposed to religion much at school and so, unsurprisingly, was entirely and obviously unfamiliar with both the verse she had to read and how you're supposed to read from the Bible. Mind you, most people in that position would have rehearsed like mad and made sure to check how you're supposed to do it, but she's arrogant even for a politician.