[Closed] Constitutional Crisis [Hypothetical]

Queenie has far to much to worry about with the other clown prince at the moment

But itd be ant-democratic & it would mean the end of the monarchy ( I say that as someone who really want the tories booted out & the entirety of our politics given a major overhaul)

What with everything that Her Maj is having to put up with at the moment (Andrew, Boris, Harry) I'd quite like her just to sweep them all aside and start again. A bit like when you have a crap hand of cards and throw them all in and pick again. She'd soar in my estimation. Total kudos, right there. It'd be great if she said to the wider Royal Family, "right, as of Monday 9am you're all fired. If you want, you can reapply for your jobs and I'll decide. After all, I am Queenie. Andy, don't bother..."

are there circumstances under which it would be appropriate?

I can't think of any, other than truly heinous crimes, none of which would be admitted to anyway.

Despite what a lot of folk might think, the Monarch has no effective power over the government.

Any of the MPs on the opposition or back benches could call for a vote of no confidence. The fact they haven't unfortunately means he's still got (parliamentary) democracy on his side.

I'm surprised TBH, anyone who stabbed him in the back now would have 10 months of good COVID news over the summer.

Taxes will have to rise and services are going to get slashed, but they could keep that off the front pages by starting inquiry after inquiry to blame all the deaths and economic damage on Boris.

Despite what a lot of folk might think, the Monarch has no effective power over the government.

I'm not sure you're right. The monarch, as head of state, retains a surprising number of rights and responsibilities that have never had to be exercised. But they're still there. At least that is the case in Canada. Maybe here in the UK we have imposed more limits on the monarch's role, but I assume not.

If the monarch tried to exercise any power, the government will remove them.

It’s a long time since I did a politics A level, but that’s my recollection of it anyway.

If the monarchy were to actually have any value, it would be in doing this.

Would it be anti-democratic? Only if we had democracy in the first place. It's so heavily corrupted, purchased, influenced that I think what we really have is an illusion of democracy.

The powers are theoretically there but attempting to use them would be morally wrong imo and lead very quickly to those powers being removed.  It would be a royalist coup

I’m not sure you’re right. The monarch, as head of state, retains a surprising number of rights and responsibilities that have never had to be exercised. But they’re still there. At least that is the case in Canada. Maybe here in the UK we have imposed more limits on the monarch’s role, but I assume not.

If the monarchy tried to exercise some of its ‘powers’ in Canada, how many minutes do you think the queen would remain head of state afterwards?

The Queen has more patience than any of us... just think about how many PMs she's seen come and go. She needed do anything, other than make a few dry quips at Johnson's expense, to his face, at one of their Wednesday meet ups. That's real privilege, right there, getting to do that! I hope it amuses her.

The powers are theoretically there but attempting to use them would be morally wrong imo and lead very quickly to those powers being removed. It would be a royalist coup

While I wouldn't want a royalist coup, or a return to royal rule for a whole host of reasons, if it does away with this Tory shower, I'll admit its tempting

given she let him prorogue parliament to stop MPs using their democratic powers she'd struggle to explain why she believed it was in the democratic interests to remove a PM when his own party haven't even managed to find 54 letters of support to oust him (yet). Now that's not to say when he goes for his weekly chat with her that she shouldn't point out what an honourable leader would do!

While I wouldn’t want a royalist coup, or a return to royal rule for a whole host of reasons, if it does away with this Tory shower, I’ll admit its tempting

Would it then be ok for a monarch to get rid of a forward thinking, progressive government that it didn't agree with, for whatever reason? Because that would be the trade-off.

Only if we had democracy in the first place. It’s so heavily corrupted, purchased, influenced that I think what we really have is an illusion of democracy.

I seem to remember a quote from someone about how we confuse liberty with licence.

I wondered what we would think if the Queen asked the PM for his resignation on the basis of capability,

She has been Queen through more PMs than I could possibly recall. She must have personally loathed many of them but she knows that her role is not to choose the PM.

Google Gough Whitlam, it ain't gonna happen.

The last time this was tried somebody got their head cut off.

The only scenario I could see is the Tory Police state starts to attack her subjects and she stages a Royalist coup with the backing of the military to temporarily take control before free elections.

Unfortunately the Tory Police state is being brought subtly...

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
etc.
(Martin Niemöller)

Maybe the first line could now say - First they came for the protestors and I did not speak out because I was not a protestor.

I guess she could express her displeasure during her weekly phone call, who would she summon to side step Johnson ?

Anyone who thinks the royals aren't full blooded tories are deceiving themselves to the extent that they are mentally incapacitated. She doesn't give a **** about the common people or nation other than it's role in glorifying and worshiping royalty. Her only concern with the current state of government is whether it will affect her power, influence and wealth.

It is basically anthropomorphism to imagine she/they have the same emotional suffering that so many others are having in this ongoing farce.

I don't see that dissolving parliament to hold an election is anti democratic in itself- it's quite the opposite (unless it's a ruse to push bills through in the interim without scrutiny, which in this scenario we're not talking about). A check on one house going too far is the main reasoning behind separation of powers (in theory).

I think it would need a much bigger catalyst than the lockdown party though. Parliament is functioning, even if we don't like it. There's not enough reason to dissolve it.

Anyone who thinks the royals aren’t full blooded tories are deceiving themselves to the extent that they are mentally incapacitated. She doesn’t give a **** about the common people or nation other than it’s role in glorifying and worshiping royalty. Her only concern with the current state of government is whether it will affect her power, influence and wealth.

As a convinced and unapologetic leftie, I actually disagree with you profoundly on this one. Just because there is a constituency of flag-shagging Tories who probably weep at the changing of the guard, and have a portrait of the queen in one of their reception rooms, history has thrown up both hideously terrible monarchs and truly enlightened ones. And philandering asshats like Andrew aside, I think that we live in an age of some fairly progressive ones - both here in the UK, and in other parts of Europe.

I don’t see that dissolving parliament to hold an election is anti democratic in itself

That isn't what happened though, is it. How long can a government expect to govern while preventing oversight by the houses... that was the question. For example, could Johnson stop parliament sitting for the next few years because then there will eventually be an election? Obviously not. Now keep cutting that down.... years, months, weeks, days... how many?

I think that we live in an age of some fairly progressive ones – both here in the UK, and in other parts of Europe

I agree.

As with many things in UK government, this is down to tradition which I think goes back to Victoria after Albert died. She just checked out, the govt of the day took over and that's how it's stayed. Successive monarchs in the current dynasty have respected this consensus and they've brought up their youngsters to respect it as well. So even if she theoretically has powers, she doesn't in practice partly by her own admission. So whilst she is meant to ask a party leader to form a government on her behalf after they win a GE, she could technically refuse. I think this is completely uncharted territory, but as said it would have to be charted pretty quickly to avoid a constitutional explosion.

However that kind of action would be the nuclear option, and we haven't even got to flying near enemy airspace stage yet, and purposely so. She has barely even passed comment on any of the recent fiascos. I don't think she'll start now, nor would Charles.

No where near to it yet anyway. Despite what the loony left here think Boris hasn't done much wrong that any other polition hasn't already done.
Virtually nothing to do with covid can be blamed on him as it has a) been trial and error and being clever after the event doesn't count and b) It is a matter of opinion. We all think we can do better. The same would be going on if we had a labour government. The biggest snag with them is that the whole idea of socialism is based on hypocracy. Ie lets be nice to all and share things around , but at the expence of anyone with more than ourselves. Nah, we are better off bumbling aong with no one making any serious errors, the voters changing their minds every so often according to what whim suits them and after all who could we moan about if our own version of political good news wasn't in power?
Consider our options. Not looking good is it if we are fussy? But then why should we be too fussy if we are not prepared to do it ourselves? You cannot condemn any of the polititions if you are not there yourself just as your can't condemn, I don't know, a MTB magazine editor.

The last time this was tried somebody got their head cut off.

Wrong. William IV’s dismissal of the Whig administration in 1834

No where near to it yet anyway. Despite what the loony left here think Boris hasn’t done much wrong that any other polition hasn’t already done.
Virtually nothing to do with covid can be blamed on him as it has a) been trial and error and being clever after the event doesn’t count and b) It is a matter of opinion. We all think we can do better. The same would be going on if we had a labour government. The biggest snag with them is that the whole idea of socialism is based on hypocracy. Ie lets be nice to all and share things around , but at the expence of anyone with more than ourselves. Nah, we are better off bumbling aong with no one making any serious errors, the voters changing their minds every so often according to what whim suits them and after all who could we moan about if our own version of political good news wasn’t in power?
Consider our options. Not looking good is it if we are fussy? But then why should we be too fussy if we are not prepared to do it ourselves? You cannot condemn any of the polititions if you are not there yourself just as your can’t condemn, I don’t know, a MTB magazine editor

Not sure where to start with this one...

when his own party haven’t even managed to find 54 letters of support to oust him (yet).

They might have more already, the process isn't automatic on the 54th letter

They might have more already

Or then again they might have looked at the likely candidates to take over and have decided to stick with the useful idiot.

Not sure where to start with this one…

I just assumed he was on the sauce when he wrote that.

Maybe the first line could now say – First they came for the protestors and I did not speak out because I was not a protestor.

Very much worth bearing in mind. And shouting shouting about.

But blimey some people get awfully wound up about a hypothetical bit of fun.

The last time this was tried somebody got their head cut off.

Wrong. William IV’s dismissal of the Whig administration in 1834

Oops - let me try again. 50% of the last two times this was tried somebody got their head cut off.

Just because there is a constituency of flag-shagging Tories who probably weep at the changing of the guard, and have a portrait of the queen in one of their reception rooms, history has thrown up both hideously terrible monarchs and truly enlightened ones. And philandering asshats like Andrew aside, I think that we live in an age of some fairly progressive ones – both here in the UK, and in other parts of Europe.

I liked this though. For all the ridiculous and obscene actions by powerful and/or rich and/or influential people, there's quite a few who accept that their privilege brings responsibility and use it wisely.

Oops – let me try again. 50% of the last two times this was tried somebody got their head cut off.

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, also known simply as the Dismissal, culminated on 11 November 1975 with the dismissal from office of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam of the Australian Labor Party (ALP), by Governor-General Sir John Kerr.

The same would be going on if we had a labour government. The biggest snag with them is that the whole idea of socialism is based on hypocracy. Ie lets be nice to all and share things around , but at the expence of anyone with more than ourselves.

Utter bollocks. I'm sorry I can't let this stand.

Firstly, the current labour party aren't socialists. Secondly, democratic socialism is about taking a LITTLE BIT from people who have shitloads, so they still have shitloads, and using it to help the people people who have **** all because they're being exploited by the people who have shitloads - not just handing it out. The system is set up to exploit people, and democratic socialists just want to put the brakes on that. If you think that's wrong, you're an absolute arsewipe. Labour want to help people, Tories want to let rich people help themselves.

End of tangent.

no one making any serious errors,

We've been chronically mis-goverened for years. Name one good thing that's gone right? And don't you dare say Brexit. We're up shit creek and the government have absolutely no idea what to do about any of it. All that's happening now is that they're being further exposed.

EDIT there was one good thing done under Tory rule - same sex marriages.

Actually no, I'm still going

There are millions of people in Britain in full time work who still can't afford basic necessities AND YOU THINK NOTHING HAS GONE WRONG?!

It's a very British state of affairs where the monarch has the powers but on the understanding, of course, that they never attempt to actually use them. The Queen understands this very well, which is why we still have a monarchy. If Charlie tried it then, yes, I agree that there will be a constitutional crisis (that will prob end in a republic)

molgrips for PM. I'll vote for his party.

There are millions of people in Britain in full time work who still can’t afford basic necessities AND YOU THINK NOTHING HAS GONE WRONG?!

Absolutely behind molgrips with this.

And philandering asshats like Andrew aside, I think that we live in an age of some fairly progressive ones

Why take randy andy aside? He is just an example of exactly who they are? They have lobbied for and received exemptions from environmental and employment laws, and of course have special privilege to hide their assets. So I wonder other than the palace PR machine why you would ever consider them even in the same post code as being "progressive"

It’s a very British state of affairs where the monarch has the powers but on the understanding, of course, that they never attempt to actually use them.

She does use them, just for her own benefit. She doesn't give a **** about anybody else.

Despite what the loony left here

Others have countered your attempts at making a point far better than I, but this specific phrase cannot go unanswered.

When you decide it’s ok to punt insults at everyone with a different political position to yours, any point you attempt to make can and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. We should be above than the social media driven generation of political name calling. Be better.

I'd like to see him marched off to the tower. A squad of the Queens guards, drag him out No10 and through the streets. No doubt to jeers and heckles from an outraged public.

And not just him, all those who happily attended knowing full well the legality at the time.

I’d like to see him marched off to the tower. A squad of the Queens guards, drag him out No10 and through the streets. No doubt to jeers and heckles from an outraged public.

For full comedy effect shouldn’t he be paraded through the streets on the back of a cart whilst the great unwashed throw rotten vegetables at him?

Or full mediaeval and hang, draw, and quarter him? Then send his quarters to the four corners of the realm as a deterrent?*

* I jest. I don’t wish anything as barbaric as that.

EDIT there was one good thing done under Tory rule – same sex marriages.

I’m glad you said “under Tory rule”… because it was MPs from other parties that made this happen. Yes a Tory PM was fully behind it, but his MPs voted pretty much 50:50 for:against. It only passed because MPs from other parties voted overwhelmingly in favour of it, and because the Conservatives were in a coalition.

Given that, by any stretch of imagination, the queen doesn't have that long left it'd be a hell of a way to bow out!

I think it's worth noting the differences between a Constitutional monarchy, the "British aristocracy" and plain old free market loving, wealth whore Tories.

The Monarchy are little more than window dressing, they have property and wealth and theoretically can override or demand the resignation of a PM, but HRH knows better than to wade into that mess and potentially errode her own position.

The Aristocracy are sort of on the wain, their titles might buy them some influence but their money is old and so are their ideas, if the investment funds keep paying out they'll not rock the boat. But it's that last group the Reese-Moggs, Goves and Johnsons, their money isn't quite as old, they didn't inherit a title but they did rub shoulders with the other groups at school, and learned to navigate a network of chums, how to wield the kind of influence that most people will never have.

They have mates on boards and in the lord's, and (as I've said before) I believe their original mission was to exploit Brexit to take power and then start nudging government spending and assets towards the grubby mitts of those captains of industry they met at Eton and Oxford.

Covid has frustrated that plan, but as ever where there's human suffering, there's a PPE contract to be awarded. A colleague pointed out that all the No10. Party leaks were annoying him because that story has overshadowed the recent "VIP lane" ruling this week, arguably the bigger scandal as it lays bare the true nature of the current government's corruption. Is this whole party in the Garden "leak" yet another Dead cat? Does Boris even really care if he is ousted?

Neither story surprised me but I do wonder at what point the "red bricks" will figure it out, half the party faithful and lots of MPs are Grumbling and calling him a liability because they can see the damage it's doing them politically but they are struggling to identify a credible successor too...

Those other two groups where wealth is concentrated clearly have an interest in the nation's economic state, but tend to take a longer view, and haven't really attempted to use their supposed power or influence in a long time. Boris's conduct still had minimal impact on them really.

So unless a someone in the cabinet throws their hat in the ring, Boris can still ride it out for a few weeks longer at least.