Coronation ?

[Observer II]

Will you be watching ?   Will you be swearing allegiance ?     😑 

[Bill]

Guaranteed it’ll be on all day long at our house, but it’ll be Mrs Green that’s glued to the TV. I was too young to remember the last coronation, so I’ll watch the main part or the ceremony and probably the music later on. As for swearing allegiance, I’ll leave others to wonder about that. 😉

 

Bill 😊

[Evil Sid]

when is it again....🙆‍♂️

Coverage on all channels for the whole day.

In depth interviews about who is wearing what, and what they had for breakfast.

This will be followed by the event itself where we will be told what is happening as it is happening just in case we don't know what is happening whilst we are watching oit happen.

Finally to round it all off a review of the day with various key key points, such as who was wearing what and where they were standing when the king walked down the street.

if we swear allegiance does that mean us peasants will have to form up to fight the opponents of the king in case of a threat to his rule...?

[Bill]

But on the plus side, it’ll make a change from all the negativity that we’ve been enduring in recent months.

 

Bill 😊

[Confused52]

7 hours ago, Evil Sid said:

.....if we swear allegiance does that mean us peasants will have to form up to fight the opponents of the king in case of a threat to his rule...?

The suggested oath is "I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God." So I think the answer to your question is No. No one else will hear whether you murmur it or not anyway.

[Evil Sid]

15 hours ago, Confused52 said:

No one else will hear whether you murmur it or not anyway.

so not much point in swearing allegiance really if nobody knows about it.......

The scout oath was more specific in it's goals but did not ask for allegiance. it was a mere promise to do your best to help others.

Still whether you swear allegiance or not in the greater scheme of things it does not matter that much.  they are highly unlikely to drag you out of your house depending on whether you swore or not.

[Observer II]

There is of course a more serious aspect to the swearing of allegiance,  that is that all Lords and MPs, and our Military swear allegiance to the Monarch - not the Government.  In effect this provides the power to avoid a coup or revolt by unelected forces, or minority elected ones.  Frankly, I deem this preferable to having a politician as head of State, with politicians having such descreditable reputations.  However, it would seem necessary for our Royalty to slim down their operation and reduce costs.    

[Bill]

I watched most of the coronation and found it quite a moving event. I thought the BBC did a brilliant job with the coverage with excellent imagery and well-informed commentary. The ceremony was probably much the same as it’s been for hundreds of years so there wasn’t too many tunes for me to sing or whistle along with.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

I fund it a tad embarrassing, as to just how out of date the whole set up is, no doubt quaint an appealing to the peasants and the tourists, but sadly stuck in a museum culture.  More so, our Constitutional arrangements, starting with the un-elected House of Lords.  Still, if we go too far the other way, we could end up with all sorts of anomolies -  apparently a black commentator on BBC questioned why the Royals on the balcony were all white !    😄

[Evil Sid]

at least it is down to a succession and not just two hulking great armies hacking away until one of them managed to wrest the crown from the other..... "if faith i have the crown and any objections will feel the point of my sword"

i did manage to avoid 99.9% of it.

All that fuss to give a bloke a hat......🤦‍♀️

[Confused52]

The two really important bits were that the King agreed to serve the people following the example of Christ and that he agreed to rule under the law. That is what sets us aside from the Republican nonsense. Abolishing the house of Lords is just another Leftie mistake. The Tories don't have a majority in the Lords any more, the Lefties do. 

[Observer II]

Which is precisely the reason to scrap it, it is not elected by or representative of ordinary folk.    

[Confused52]

If it were elected it would just follow the commons. Continuity flows from the uncertainty of an absolute majority, the public would be denied the ability to cause tension in the legislature. The Americans go too far and their system of electing two chambers leaves the often deliberately causing a stalemate to avoid runaway government. Our system is superior to most and the objections to, for the most part working peers, are usually base on a stereotype which leads to the usual envy from the usual suspects. The current system has a twelve year lag so numbers can be controlled by making new appointments have an average age around retirement age. What goes wrong is the worship of youth and putting those ejected from the Commons into the Lords too early.

[Observer II]

If elected, it would provide an instant mechanism for providing PR,  a reduction to 100 seats, elected on a Party list basis, in direct proportion to the actual vote at a G/Election.   

[Confused52]

That is one of the worst proposals to destabilise the country that I have ever seen. You propose anarchy with minority parties controlling policy. Massive swings in policy would be caused - I suppose the Russians would like it!

[Observer II]

😄   Well this type of PR is employed in most European Countries and as the Upper House has a scrutiny function rather than an executive one, I doubt the anarchy you imply.

[Confused52]

There is an analysis by the Electoral reform society of each constituency in the last General Election and the aggregate results by party based on 650 seats using the D'Hondt algorithm used in Europe. If you scale the seat to 100 instead of 650 ( since you are hell bent on making Government cheaper) what you get is this result:

Labour, Liberal Democrats, SNP with a majority of 1 and kept in power by a rainbow coalition of anti-Tories -Greens, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, and one more seat for one of these groups.

Your suggestion will definitely break up the union and re-joining the EU looks a dead cert to me. The number of seats is such that every member will be in Government, constituencies will cover six times the population and generally more than one Town. It is a humdinger of a proposal - Let's not do that.

Conservative	44
Brexit Party	2
Labour	33
Liberal Democrat	11
Green Party	2
SNP	4
Plaid Cymru	1
DUP	1
Sinn Féin	1
SDLP	0
Alliance	0
UUP	0
Others	1
	100

 

When you look at coalitions the likely result would be:

Conservative	44
Brexit Party	2
DUP	1
	47

 

Labour	33
Liberal Democrat	11
SNP	4
Green Party	2
Plaid Cymru	1
Sinn Féin	1
Others	1
	53

 

[Observer II]

As I said, it wouldn't have executive powers, and your figures are made up -  in any case.    

[Confused52]

Well the data is n9t made up it is the result of the electoral reform society applying D'Hondt to the actual election result on the basis on a National list. The thing I did was just to divide the seats by 6.5 and round to an integer. I made up the coalitions but gave you all the figures so you can make up your own. Make one up for yourself it will not be any more stable. PR is hopeless. You didn't say it has no executive powers and you didn't say what change there was to the Commons. Without executive powers there is no point.

 

 

[Observer II]

No need for D'Hondt, as it would be a simple direct application of the percentage support for Parties at a G/E, so similar to opinion polls, the Parties would then take their proportion from their Party lists..  The current H o Lords has no executive powers, it's function is to scrutinise and delay legislation by the Commons (Gov).  In time this could of course change as the system beds in.  Labour has toyed with the idea, with their Brown Report, but Brown seems to be applying a Regional dimension to it, to get geographical proportionality.   What is clear, is that the current antiquated system is undemocratic,  over expensive and unrepresentative, and based on feudal origins.    

[Confused52]

I cant be bothered to have another change of tack from you so I will not correct your constitutional misunderstandings.