I guess many of us knew that Hoyle was useless and complete idiot but now he has surpassed himself.
Lindsay Hoyle
I'm finding it hard to portray just how much I despise some of my fellow humans.
I guess many of us knew that Hoyle was useless and complete idiot but now he has surpassed himself.
He isn't just a complete idiot he also Speaker of the House of Commons, a role which is essential to UK politics and carries with it the responsibility to oversee the smooth running of the legislature.
The fact that a politician who is capable of making this indisputably crass idiotic comment has been elevated to such a high position speaks volumes with regards to the quality of UK politicians.
In recent decades UK politicians have increasingly been seen by the public as discredited and hopelessly self-serving. Respect for politicans must surely be at an all-time low and the latest comment by the Speaker can only feed into that narrative.
Is it any wonder therefore that so many people recoil in horror at the thought of a politician being given the role of Head of State?
If western parliamentary democracy was all that it is cracked out to be and it worked in the way it is suppose to work then you might reasonably expect politicians to be among the most well-loved and respected people in the public's eyes, certainly from those who voted for them. Instead they appear to be among the most hated. Something is clearly broken.
A real sense of perspective from Lindsay Hoyle this morning
Jeez, I'm fairly pro Royal by STW standards, but Hoyle has surpassed his own low standards there
I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don't get it at all
I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don’t get it at all
In theory, it's a check on political power.
But as the UK doesn't have a constitution, there's nothing for them to do.
Other than to be incredibly wealthy, wear hats and occasionally open things.
Just read up on the Duke of Edinburgh title. Let's get rid of that one too, given how made up it is.
Phil the Dane/Greek got it after it had lain dormant for 50years and the third time it had been created.
I am not going to defend Hoyle because it was an idiotic thing to say but I think it might be fair to say that tomorrow will possibly represent the greatest gathering of world leaders in history. Although if he meant that he should have said so.
I believe that 500 world leaders are expected to attend tomorrow's funeral which must surely exceed anything that even the United Nations has managed to stage.
Obviously it is mostly down to modern 21st century transport - a hundred years ago the logistics wouldn't have allowed it.
Which of course must be hugely tempting for any terrorist organisation which wants to stage a spectacular attack. Or a Bond villain with a Death Ray orbiting in Outer Space.
believe that 500 world leaders are expected to attend tomorrow’s funeral which must surely exceed anything that even the United Nations has managed to stage.
Given there are only 195 countries in the world and since aren’t invited I’m struggling to see how you get to 200 let alone 500. Do some countries have multiple leaders?
Plenty of past heads of state will be invited, won’t they? People who had dealings with the Queen while in their roles. Then add in all the politicians who lead or led the governments of their countries, but aren’t or weren’t heads of state.
I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don’t get it at all
I think the basic idea is you have someone politically neutral, which means when he or she turns up to console flooding victims or welcome the leader of China, it's not seen as an endorsement of either the current government's policies regarding disaster support, or what the PM really thinks about a nominally socialist but actually capitalistic dictatorship.
Of course it doesn't really work in practice with a monarchy, as they inevitably represent a (small "c") conservative viewpoint, which is naturally Tory.
In theory, it’s a check on political power.
But as the UK doesn’t have a constitution, there’s nothing for them to do.
Other than to be incredibly wealthy, wear hats and occasionally open things.
As I said earlier. You might want to consider why every country in the world (except Switzerland) has one. Its actually to continue sovereign power no matter what happens to the Government. It might sound like arcane political theory, but what happens when a government loses an election. Why would any of its laws still continue beyond its tenure in office? So you have a head of state which means that the judiciary, the police, the armed forces etc etc still have authority.... because it is conferred upon them by the soveriegn power & not by the government which has a limited lifespan.
I still dont know what we need a head of state for. Don’t get it at all
Really? Well you kept that quiet.
Do some countries have multiple leaders?
Yup. Some will, for example, be sending a king as well as a prime minister.
Why would any of its laws still continue beyond its tenure in office? So you have a head of state which means that the judiciary, the police, the armed forces etc etc still have authority…. because it is conferred upon them by the soveriegn power & not by the government which has a limited lifespan.
In the UK the laws are voted in by Parliament, not by the government. The idea we need a head of state to provide continuity to laws is a nice legal fiction, but nothing more. After all, following your argument - does this mean all the UK's laws are now null and void following the death of the Queen?
Yup. Some will, for example, be sending a king as well as a prime minister.
I think Spain's sending two kings 😀
I am not buying that imnotverygood.
You could easily have the people sovereign as in Scotland or the constitution or the country or create any number of mechanisms to cover that.
Anyway the uk royal famiky are supoosed to gave no political power
Just because most countries have one does not mean its right or necessary.
When you have an elected head of state like the USA that fiction collapses anyway. The USA only has o e oerson doing both head of state and head of government
Of course it doesn’t really work in practice with a monarchy, as they inevitably represent a (small “c”) conservative viewpoint, which is naturally Tory.
Nor does it work often with elected presidents (e.g. Trump or Putin).
It might sound like arcane political theory, but what happens when a government loses an election. Why would any of its laws still continue beyond its tenure in office? So you have a head of state which means that the judiciary, the police, the armed forces etc etc still have authority…. because it is conferred upon them by the soveriegn power & not by the government which has a limited lifespan.
That's such an abstract admin role that it could be done by anything - animal, vegetable or mineral.
The idea that society would collapse if some aristocrat isn't handed mythical powers for a few days is daft.
And you could choose something to fulfil the role that isn't a global symbol of class privilege and inequality.
Maybe a cat. Or more boringly, a civil servant.
In the UK the laws are voted in by Parliament, not by the government.
It depends. And the Tories extended the use of secondary legislation because… well, taking back control in the name of Brexit… and they can do so because they are the Monarch’s government.
[ not saying any of this is good, but the balance between parliament/ government/ monarch is far from clear cut… changes to the law are not all voted on by parliament, for instance ]
It depends. And the Tories extended the use of secondary legislation because… well, taking back control in the name of Brexit… and they can do so because they are the Monarch’s government.
I'm no expert, but as I understood it they have that power because Parliament granted it to them (or hasn't bothered to take it off them). It could just as "easily" take it back.
You could easily have the people sovereign as in Scotland or the constitution or the country or create any number of mechanisms to cover that.
Firstly the Claim of Right does not make the people sovereign in Scotland. Legally, the monarch is still the sovereign power. Scottish legislation still needs Royal Assent.
You don't seen to understand the concept of sovereign power. You still need to have a head of state. Its why the armed forces swear allegience to the monarch & not the government. They represent the state. If not, why does everybody have one.
Trust me on this. My History degree may not have been any great practical use, but I did spend a year studying the history of political philosophy and in as much as I can only vaguely remember part of it, I do know a little bit about the subject. Failing that ask yourself again about the surprising number of Heads of State around the world given you don't see any point to it.
That’s such an abstract admin role that it could be done by anything – animal, vegetable or mineral.
Yes, it could be any political entity. see the rest of the world. Your problem is that once you have a sovereign entity, then it is by definition the ultimate political authority. Your Sovereign is where political power resides. You can't just vote it away if they are unwilling to relinquish that power. You can have a revolution, and destroy the existing political state, or you could ask nicely and the Sovereign may agree to relinquish power, but this is where the theory of our unwritten constitution & people's perception of the State collide. We are not a Democracy. Sovereignty does not lie with the people: It lies with the monarch, or strictly speaking the 'monarch in parliament'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-in-Parliament
We have to have one because wveryone else does is a very poor argument.
There is nothing i can see in what you say that means we need a head of state seoarate from the political leader. The us does not for example.
The issues you raise could equally be filled by an abstract such as a constitution or to the people of to a material object
You can’t just vote it away if they are unwilling to relinquish that power
The US? The head of state is elected
The US? The head of state is elected
Yes, but that is because of the US Constitution, which defines who is the head of State & includes the concept of popular sovereignty. Essentially the American people declared themselves soverign. ie Ultimate political authority rests with the people themselves.. but they had to have a revolution to achieve it. You might also notice that they justify it with the phrases
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
So essentially democratic government is correct becasue we say so.
“That’s a challenging w@@k”
[img] 
[/img]
So we dont need a head of state to be sovereign. It could be the people as in the USA?
Which of course must be hugely tempting for any terrorist organisation which wants to stage a spectacular attack. Or a Bond villain with a Death Ray orbiting in Outer Space.
Or an unhinged Russian dictator needing to go out with a bang
Or an unhinged Russian dictator needing to go out with a bang
If that happens then the sparks of WWIII start but I don't think that will happen because they, even the enemies, have too much respect for the Queen.
Woop Woop - thank god this endless shin ding finishes today, no more news readers pretending to be sad and desperately trying to find black clothes, No more queue updates, no more royalist propaganda shoved down our throats
And hopefully a family may now be able to greave the loss of their Mum in peace away from the public eye
Lets hope Charlie gets a good few years, we can’t go through all this again soon.
I still think she’s been in Windsor for over a week
Heh! You think this ends today?! 😂 Just like Princess Di (gawwwd bless her) this’ll never end!
I’m enjoying Britains most beautiful landscapes on 4, also enjoying the lack of adverts
I haven't seen the arrival of the King of Zamunda yet.
Haven't seen any telly, in the newspaper I go straight to the weather and the puzzles. I'm pristine me.
According to the BBC, the queens funeral is the number one sporting story today. I certainly welcome turning the funeral procession into a race, it will make the highlights a bit more exciting. I wonder if the post match interviews with royals is going to be as generic as usual sporting interviews.
Presumably the royal family are pretty good at the relay events?
Their batton passing would be instantaneous!
I keep hearing quotes from stones roses songs
No way that's the real crown. Wife reckons it is.
Just trying to work out who would be monarch if they all got blown up.
Just trying to work out who would be monarch if they all got blown up.
Danny Dyer ovs.
When the royal cousins did their standing around the coffin bit, the youngest, 14yo viscount somebody, had medals on his chest. Why?
"As it turns out, the medals Viscount Severn were not anything to do with military. He was in fact displaying one medal for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee in 2012 and another one for her late Majesty's Platinum Jubilee earlier this year.
These were also worn by eldest grandchild Peter Phillips."
When the royal cousins did their standing around the coffin bit, the youngest, 14yo viscount somebody, had medals on his chest. Why?
DoE.
Diamond and Platinum Jubilee medals, gifted by the Queen in recognition of those who support the Monarch
https://www.royal.uk/jubilee-medal-be-presented-token-nation%E2%80%99s-thanks
She also gave them to members of her family in recognition of the support they give (gave) her in her duties.
Been for a walk around the village. Back entrance to the castle where the great and the good are heading for the private funeral. Needless to say, more police than a football match. Might walk up to see the coffin as it passes. As for medals, mines in its box still. I’ve never worn it in public.
Ah gongs for gongs sake.
