UK General Discussion: Rishecession

[Frodo]

Labour is pledging to abolish the House of Lords.

If the House of Lords is actually abolished, what happens to all this ceremony and pageantry?

Will King Charles open Parliament at the House of Commons instead?  And if so, will the throne chairs at the back of the room of the House of Lords be moved over?  Or are they going to do away with all that altogether?

[Joe Republic]

Will King Charles open Parliament at the House of Commons instead?

The last time a king named Charles entered the House of Commons, things went a bit awry afterward.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Two in one day? For misconduct? When was the last time that happened?

They're not necessarily comparable - Labour's new policy is to suspend the whip when any complaint is made; the Conservative policy is only to suspend when their hand is forced (see also the several serious allegations floating around for people who are still in receipt of the whip.)

[Torrain]

Will King Charles open Parliament at the House of Commons instead?  And if so, will the throne chairs at the back of the room of the House of Lords be moved over?  Or are they going to do away with all that altogether?

As mentioned elsewhere, the King just doesn’t enter the Commons - and none have since the English Civil War (it’s become a whole convention in its own right). Besides, there’s no space for the throne apparatus in the Commons, (not to mention it’s all bolted to the ground).

My guess is that in the event of Lords abolition, the Lords Chamber would still host the Kings Speech, with the Commons and the members of the new Upper House all in attendance. I’ve been in that room, and the whole thing is built around the throne, and seems tailor-made to host the monarch. You could rework things and hold the speech in Westminster Hall, away from all the gilding if you really wanted to be radical, but I doubt the powers-that-be would be all that happy about such a suggestion.

There’s a chance some noteworthy peers could still be invited, especially under Conservative governments (because old habits die hard) - given no government has the time/energy to abolish the peerage system entirely.

TLDR; short of an actual, bloody revolution - pageantry never dies, it just evolves

[CumbrianLefty]

Two in one day? For misconduct? When was the last time that happened?

They're not necessarily comparable - Labour's new policy is to suspend the whip when any complaint is made; the Conservative policy is only to suspend when their hand is forced (see also the several serious allegations floating around for people who are still in receipt of the whip.)

And of course there are arguments that Labour's approach is too heavy handed (coupled, inevitably, with suspicion that factionalism is sometimes just below the surface) and the way too many of these cases seem to drag on interminably (the most infamous case maybe being Kelvin Hopkins in the last parliament - though that shows that this, as much else, didn't actually start with Starmer) really does not help matters. Having said that, it must be said that not *all* the names of suspended Labour MPs are a total surprise, shall we say - and lets just leave it at that in a public forum

[Torrain]

Also, promise this isn’t just me in my echo-chamber, but it appears there might be a slight sampling issue with yesterday’s Scottish Independence poll, over-sampling 2014 Yes voters (as Ipsos-Mori doesn’t weight for past voter-intention, producing a sample who were 54% pro-independence in 2014). In essence, there’s been a tilt towards Yes, but the top line figures (as quoted by Flynn at PMQs) aren’t entirely reliable.

I guess just throw it in the average, and we’ll see where we are in the new year…

[EastAnglianLefty]

Two in one day? For misconduct? When was the last time that happened?

They're not necessarily comparable - Labour's new policy is to suspend the whip when any complaint is made; the Conservative policy is only to suspend when their hand is forced (see also the several serious allegations floating around for people who are still in receipt of the whip.)

And of course there are arguments that Labour's approach is too heavy handed (coupled, inevitably, with suspicion that factionalism is sometimes just below the surface) and the way too many of these cases seem to drag on interminably (the most infamous case maybe being Kelvin Hopkins in the last parliament - though that shows that this, as much else, didn't actually start with Starmer) really does not help matters. Having said that, it must be said that not *all* the names of suspended Labour MPs are a total surprise, shall we say - and lets just leave it at that in a public forum

And to be fair, whilst factionalism is never entirely absent from the party's processes, it's less evident here than anywhere else. Most of those suspended under this procedure are to a greater or lesser extent sympathetic to Starmer, whereas the most controversial suspension of the whip isn't part of this particular process at all.

[Conservatopia]

Will King Charles open Parliament at the House of Commons instead?  And if so, will the throne chairs at the back of the room of the House of Lords be moved over?  Or are they going to do away with all that altogether?

As mentioned elsewhere, the King just doesn’t enter the Commons - and none have since the English Civil War (it’s become a whole convention in its own right). Besides, there’s no space for the throne apparatus in the Commons, (not to mention it’s all bolted to the ground).

My guess is that in the event of Lords abolition, the Lords Chamber would still host the Kings Speech, with the Commons and the members of the new Upper House all in attendance. I’ve been in that room, and the whole thing is built around the throne, and seems tailor-made to host the monarch. You could rework things and hold the speech in Westminster Hall, away from all the gilding if you really wanted to be radical, but I doubt the powers-that-be would be all that happy about such a suggestion.

There’s a chance some noteworthy peers could still be invited, especially under Conservative governments (because old habits die hard) - given no government has the time/energy to abolish the peerage system entirely.

TLDR; short of an actual, bloody revolution - pageantry never dies, it just evolves

Of course if Starmer felt he had political capital to burn he could propose permanently vacating the Palace of Westminster and moving to a new purpose built legislature* in York.

* please no hemicycles

[Torrain]

Will King Charles open Parliament at the House of Commons instead?  And if so, will the throne chairs at the back of the room of the House of Lords be moved over?  Or are they going to do away with all that altogether?

As mentioned elsewhere, the King just doesn’t enter the Commons - and none have since the English Civil War (it’s become a whole convention in its own right). Besides, there’s no space for the throne apparatus in the Commons, (not to mention it’s all bolted to the ground).

My guess is that in the event of Lords abolition, the Lords Chamber would still host the Kings Speech, with the Commons and the members of the new Upper House all in attendance. I’ve been in that room, and the whole thing is built around the throne, and seems tailor-made to host the monarch. You could rework things and hold the speech in Westminster Hall, away from all the gilding if you really wanted to be radical, but I doubt the powers-that-be would be all that happy about such a suggestion.

There’s a chance some noteworthy peers could still be invited, especially under Conservative governments (because old habits die hard) - given no government has the time/energy to abolish the peerage system entirely.

TLDR; short of an actual, bloody revolution - pageantry never dies, it just evolves

Of course if Starmer felt he had political capital to burn he could propose permanently vacating the Palace of Westminster and moving to a new purpose built legislature* in York.

* please no hemicycles

A permanent move seems like it would be unpopular in the Westminster village - but maybe he'd have the capital to move them into some temporary accommodation while they stop Westminster sinking into the Thames/bursting into flames, poisoning MPs with asbestos, and everything else the proposed renovations are supposed to fix. And yeah - bonus points if they try to go to somewhere "left behind" in the process (although I'm sure practicalities would end up killing that idea eventually).

I think the single most chaotic choice would be moving Parliament to Edinburgh, and room-sharing with the Scottish Parliament for a parliamentary term, while Westminster is being fixed up. Like a bad odd-couple sitcom, but with serious constitutional ramifications.
Utterly unworkable? Yeah. Amusing? Probably.

[Silent Hunter]

There are now 15 MPs suspended from their parties:

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/whip-removed-mps-suspended-parties-julian-knight-latest-2017935

[2952-0-0]

Also

https://mobile.twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1600461810473357312

Interesting, very out of kilter with most recent opinion polling if accurate.

From someone from Quebec, totally expected after that Court decision. Being told by a court "no, you can't do that, only the central government can" is one of the greatest fuels for independentism.

Perhaps, but as we saw in Quebec, voters will eventually get tired of the debate about independence, and move on to bread-and-butter issues.

Will King Charles open Parliament at the House of Commons instead?

The last time a king named Charles entered the House of Commons, things went a bit awry afterward.

The last King Charles was known for fooling around with his mistresses, rather than crashing into the House of Commons.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Will King Charles open Parliament at the House of Commons instead?

The last time a king named Charles entered the House of Commons, things went a bit awry afterward.

The last King Charles was known for fooling around with his mistresses, rather than crashing into the House of Commons.

Yes. His father, though...

[TheTide]

Perhaps, but as we saw in Quebec, voters will eventually get tired of the debate about independence, and move on to bread-and-butter issues.

The constitutional question has remained at the forefront (as has the SNP in electoral and government terms) through Covid, Brexit, austerity, various other crises and a series of scandals. It could be that independence is a bread-and-butter issue in the minds of a lot of voters, rightly or wrongly  The 'getting tired of it' part may well only occur after the issue has been settled.

[CumbrianLefty]

What ultimately stiffed the independence side in Quebec was losing a *second* referendum, surely?

Having said that, number crunching this latest poll does seem to show a very pro-SNP/independence sample - so maybe sweeping conclusions should be resisted until more data is in.

[Lord Halifax]

Also

https://mobile.twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1600461810473357312

Interesting, very out of kilter with most recent opinion polling if accurate.

From someone from Quebec, totally expected after that Court decision. Being told by a court "no, you can't do that, only the central government can" is one of the greatest fuels for independentism.

Perhaps, but as we saw in Quebec, voters will eventually get tired of the debate about independence, and move on to bread-and-butter issues.

Not sure that's a good comparison. Once mobilized European separatist movements don't tend to die unless they try to build on a too shallow identity like Lega Nord's North Italian separatism (see e.g. Catalonia or Flanders) and Scottish national identity runs deep.

Quebec also makes up a significantly bigger part of Canada than Scotland of the UK, so it's easier to make the case for Franco-Canadians (a bigger group than Quebecois) influencing Canada than Scotland having a strong voice in the UK, the argument that London and the SE will always dominate the British state (and disregard Scotland's interests) is very easy to make.

[CumbrianLefty]

Scotland, though, has traditionally had more influence on the UK than mere numbers would suggest. Of course, that is less true under modern Tory governments who really are mainly English based (and mostly southern England at that, the current PM holding a Yorkshire seat notwithstanding)

Whatever happens though, nationalism there isn't going to die or even majorly decline any time soon - but an erosion of the recent SNP electoral hegemony is certainly more plausible, especially if a Labour government does take power in Westminster and is well received.

[Lord Halifax]

Scotland, though, has traditionally had more influence on the UK than mere numbers would suggest. Of course, that is less true under modern Tory governments who really are mainly English based (and mostly southern England at that, the current PM holding a Yorkshire seat notwithstanding)

sure, but compared to Canada it's still a much easier argument to make

[Conservatopia]

The Scottish independence movement is fairly unique in the world:
- The Scots are not and never have been an oppressed minority (eg Kurds)
- Scotland is not ethnically different to the UK (eg Kosovo)
- Scotland does not speak a different language to the UK (eg Quebec)
- Scotland is not geographically separated from the UK (eg Bougainville)

It's analogous to Minnesotan headbanging nationalists deciding to separate from the US for no good reason.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

The Scottish independence movement is fairly unique in the world:
- The Scots are not and never have been an oppressed minority (eg Kurds)
- Scotland is not ethnically different to the UK (eg Kosovo)
- Scotland does not speak a different language to the UK (eg Quebec)
- Scotland is not geographically separated from the UK (eg Bougainville)

It's analogous to Minnesotan headbanging nationalists deciding to separate from the US for no good reason.

Those are all valid (and interesting) points but I don't recall Minnesota being an independent Kingdom for nearly a thousand years, on and off of course, and it seems like that would be relevant.

But what do I know, ignore the yankee and carry on everyone.

[2952-0-0]

Scotland, though, has traditionally had more influence on the UK than mere numbers would suggest. Of course, that is less true under modern Tory governments who really are mainly English based (and mostly southern England at that, the current PM holding a Yorkshire seat notwithstanding)

Whatever happens though, nationalism there isn't going to die or even majorly decline any time soon - but an erosion of the recent SNP electoral hegemony is certainly more plausible, especially if a Labour government does take power in Westminster and is well received.

Quebec nationalism didn't so much die, but quietly evolved into an acceptance of Quebec as a distinct nation within Canada. The decades of uncertainty around Quebec's future also contributed to the stagnation of its economy relative to the rest of Canada, most famously marked by the exodus of the headquarters of the major banks to Toronto.

Of course, Britain's economy is stagnating relative to the rest of Europe post you-know-what, but a long and drawn-out period of uncertainty about Scotland's future can't be helpful to its economy, either.

[CumbrianLefty]

Scotland is generally accepted as a distinct nation within the UK, though - and this has pretty much always been the case since 1707 (even at the height of "modern" unionism in the 1950s)

[Хahar 🤔]

Also

https://mobile.twitter.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1600461810473357312

Interesting, very out of kilter with most recent opinion polling if accurate.

From someone from Quebec, totally expected after that Court decision. Being told by a court "no, you can't do that, only the central government can" is one of the greatest fuels for independentism.

Perhaps, but as we saw in Quebec, voters will eventually get tired of the debate about independence, and move on to bread-and-butter issues.

When did Quebec voters move to bread-and-butter issues? Admittedly I don't consume much of the francophone Quebec press, but as far as I can tell the last federal and provincial election in Quebec were both dominated by cultural issues: women wearing head coverings and immigrants speaking English and the like. I don't know what the current Quebec government has done in terms of economic policy but I can certainly tell you what it's campaigned on in cultural policy.

The Quebec independence movement became irrelevant because right-wing nationalists in Quebec achieved total victory on cultural issues, rendering independence unnecessary from their standpoint and consigning left-wing nationalism to oblivion. I don't know what the equivalent of that in Scotland would be, which sort of gets to the point that Conservatopia made. In any case I don't think the "resolution" of the Quebec issue in Canada is a model for any other country.

[afleitch]

Scotland is generally accepted as a distinct nation within the UK, though - and this has pretty much always been the case since 1707 (even at the height of "modern" unionism in the 1950s)

And Scotland was arguably a more 'independent' nation prior to the rise of the welfare state and other state apparatus due to the powers afforded to it as part of the Act of Union; law, church and education.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Scotland is generally accepted as a distinct nation within the UK, though - and this has pretty much always been the case since 1707 (even at the height of "modern" unionism in the 1950s)

Yes, so that while we could conventionally never describe Scottish people as some sort of minority group even in the loosest possible sense, this is not because Scottish people were/are seen as identical to English people: it's more that once you cross the border, the majority group becomes Scottish; much as when the Monarch does they become a Presbyterian rather than an Anglican. As bizarre as this might sound to people who aren't British, it's one reason why the debate over Scotland's constitutional status has never anything like as nasty as the one in Quebec, even at its worst: there has never been this sense of Scottish people as a besieged ethnic minority.

[Cassius]

Apparently we sanctioned the ruler of Burma recently, according to that camel nosed f*** we have for a Foreign Secretary.