The Greens have been allocated some on the grounds of having an MP. So why not Reform?
Sir Keir Starmer should grant Reform UK seats in the House of Lords, the Conservative Lords leader has said.
Lord True said that ensuring every party in the House of Commons had representation in the Upper Chamber was a “sensible constitutional principle”.
In a rare interview, the Conservative leader in the House of Lords said the Prime Minister should give Reform peerages to allow the party to give its point of view in both Houses.
Nigel Farage wrote to Sir Keir in August, demanding that he address the “democratic disparity” in the Upper Chamber by granting Reform peerages.
He received no reply, and in the most recent peerages list released earlier this month, there was no mention of Reform UK.
One possible answer is that Reform is different, see?
We saw this back in Ukip days. The BBC had rulz about who got to be on political programmes during election periods and all that. Oh, no Ukip, no, we don;t work on opinion polls, d’ye see, but seats won? Then it became oh, but yes, d’ye see it’s only for this type of election, Euros don’t count for GEs and so on. Every time we met the previous rulz they’d changed.
4 MPs should mean a peerage on the political list – or two perhaps.
And let’s be honest about it, who doesn’t want Gawain to get vermine?
Quite sensible, and right against the shins of the Blob and Establishment.
So it’ll never happen….
Lord Nigel of Dundee.
Would be brilliant.
Where is the King?
King eco for the plebs, but not for me? And his son is just as bad.
The whole stinking thing has to be removed. Turn buck house into a theme park or hotel.
For all its deficiencies, constitutional monarchy remains the best form of governance. A President Blair or Branson would spout similar eco-crap….
I agree but the problem is that Brenda was an aberration, sticking as she did to being a figurehead and nothing else. It’s what we’re accustomed to and expect, but with her exception British monarchs aren’t like that. They stick their oars in, and this time we have a wittering “defender of faith” eco-loony, and then his woke son. Even his wife’s world-class legs and smile don’t make up for that.
The aberration is Charles III – not Elizabeth II, or George VI or George V or Edward VII or Victoria – but it is important to distinguish the office from its occupant. Let His Majesty witter about climate change. At least, he is above party politics – unlike (say) Catherine Connolly, Ireland’s left-wing President, who promotes diversity, etc.
PS George V was an amusing cove.
On being told that a delegation from Bognor was waiting to present their case for the town to be called Bognor Regis, he exclaimed “Bugger Bognor!”.
On being told that an equerry was homosexual, he remarked, “Really? I thought such fellows shot themselves.”
IIRC correctly, the ‘Bugger Bognor’ comment was a reply to a Butler (or similar) suggesting he’d be well enough to visit the town soon, and allegedly were his last words.
My source is Jane Ridley in her biography, George V. The King- Emperor’s last words were allegedly, “How is the Empire?”
RIP Phil the Greek. Sorely missed.
Above party politics, yes, but not above politics, and that’s his downfall. He’s expected to be a figurehead, nothing more or less. The best way to destroy the Firm is to play woke politics, because the woke are naturally republican and can quickly see that they could elect their own grifters to do what Chuck and Will do.
Great. At least president Branson would be our choice, not a defective accident of birth.
Truth is, they aren’t necessary. They’re out of touch cosplay. We could open parliament without an absurd gold carriage . They do not interfere in the work of parliament even when it treads on basic constitutional rights like holding elections. If they aren’t going to even make the smallest noise about that then they are not a constitutional monarchy defending the most basic of democratic rights.
A President Branson/Blair would not be a unanimous choice, so a presidential election would be divisive to some extent. Democracy is a socially centrifugal force, and it needs to be balanced by socially centripetal forces – like the monarchy.
As for the deplorable cancelling of local elections, this is not a core constitutional issue. The government has the majority to implement it; and the decision has in most cases been devolved. At the weekly audience, the King can advise and warn the PM about such policies but he is not constitutionally at liberty to voice public opposition.
Electing a president? No one may stand for any party. No previous political position. Nominations only from the public. All hail President Clarkson.
Everybody has at least one previous political position – not least Clarkson…
That’s the point though, no?
President Branson could claim that you voted for him, and he has some kind of democratic mandate, and therefore he should exercise his honorary powers and not sign the European Union (Withdrawal) Act into law, because that’s what the people really want.
Queen Elizabeth II, by contrast, inherited the throne, and left Westminster alone to sort their own mess out.
Presidents always end up like this, not quite an elected minister, not quite a ceremonial figurehead. Better just to have a hereditary monarch with no defacto power.
If you mean Charles, did you see his Christmas broadcast?
Something something diversity is good, here’s some Jews who were slaughtered in Australia by the diversity, I met the Pope and his face is very smooth, and to play me off here’s some Ukrainian carol singers.
(Btw, that was the best bit and brilliant propaganda for the pro-Ukraine side. Simple, effective and refreshingly antedotal to the kind of slick, cynical, digital based influence campaigns we’ve all grown weary of, and not threatening like the bellicose rhetoric of NATO officials. Putin should be photographed frolicking with puppies for the People’s Friend if he wants to sway British opinion.)
Tbf I didn’t pay very close attention because it seemed like the kind of organic mulch we’ve raked so many times before and the children were running about reenacting Lord of the Flies for the benefit of grandparents, but I don’t think I’ve missed anything important.
King Charles III doesn’t know what time it is. He’s still reading a script written by Richard Curtis in the more optimistic times of 1997. His Royal Highness Montezuma might have given such a speech as Cortez approached the immortal city of Tenochtitlan. He assures us that we have “much in common” with the heavily armed, steel-clad Spaniards who keep asking where we keep our gold and chicas. Hmm.
It’s a ridiculous institution. I was going to compare it to carnival queens but they are at least the prettiest girl in town.
He’s a man who never had to work to get a nice house and a pretty wife. He turns up looking like an embarrassment and can’t even read the script well. How much are you going to get your childish, stupid ideas kicked out of you if that’s all it took? Do you think Di or Kate would have looked twice at these blokes if they weren’t attached to a lot of inherited money?
The old monarchies, a Duke would have gone to war over such a tosser and taken the crown and we’d have a less embarrassing king
Not really Charles’ fault. He is insipid, but that would’ve been fine in most previous centuries. Hard to understand how a hereditary monarch could fail to embody the collective folly of the social establishment he’s the apex of.
Unfortunately that establishment went rotten and got infected with brainworms, decided to abolish tradition in general and the idea of “our country” as traditionally understood. Which was always going to be an existential problem for an institution based on Bible, blood and soil.
Seems to be a general, ominous, half-spoken feeling out there that We Can’t Keep Going On Like This, no? So you wonder what, if anything, the purpose of having a King of Multiculturalism is, after multiculturalism demonstrably failed. Do we need Prince William to fly to Brazil to give pious speeches about global warming to Kylie Minogue and other millionaires?
Local politician Homer Stokes asked the important questions: “is you is, or is you ain’t my constituency?” King Charles’ constituency appears to be… people who think everything is basically going fine, if only we’d “be kind” a bit harder? I’m not sure who else this royal performance is aimed at.
As I say, out of touch, irrelevant. Little more than handing out wanky eco prizes. With the added hilarity of taking a fucking long haul flight to do it.
What’s the point in having kings and princes that are ugly thickos doing cosplay. What’s the symbolism there? Kings and Queens used to be the people with the guile to beat the next guy. Because if you didn’t have that, your cousin would have you murdered and take the job. Or send an army and take your land. Elizabeth I was a Michael Corleone -level badass who fought off all sorts of threats and won. You’d have to at least respect that.
People have this “constitutional monarchy” but the first part is clearly absent. Ending jury trials and elections is constitutional vandalism and they just sit there with their horses and gardens and turning up to open hospitals.
Yup. It’s one thing if the constitutional vandalism was in the manifesto and the people voted for it. But I don’t remember ending jury trials or scrapping local elections being one of the issues debated at the last general election, so quite legitimate for HM to kick up a fuss.
The old monarchies, a Duke would have gone to war over such a tosser and taken the crown and we’d have a less embarrassing king
People take the unification of England for granted, but it was the end product of centuries of fighting off Viking invader-settlers, before their bastard French grandchildren got lucky in 1066.
It’s hard to imagine the current Duke of Norfolk, despite bearing the splendidly Norman name of Fitzalan-Howard, leading a Papist Insurrection with cavalry and culverins against his beloved monarch Charles III. Depressingly few Parliamentarians these days have experience leading private regiments of shotte and pike. Men in the olden days had more fun in general, and never had to worry about average speed cameras.
Steve…. Your King chose to go with “Charles”. Even though he had full chance to change it.
Given the performance of the previous two with the same name… That’s really all there is…
You all should have twigged the moment he chose his Name….
Your King chose to go with “Charles”. Even though he had full chance to change it.
I was confused there for a second, because I thought you meant Jesus Christ, but of course you mean Charleroi.
Charles I was personally brave, and willing to risk his life for his kingdom. Charles II seems to have been an affable, tolerant, cultured man, born into a snakepit of paranoia, intrigue and plots? Third time lucky? There’s no Titus Oates this time. Unless Camilla is a Vatican sleeper agent and the Jesuits pull off the ultimate long con?
Nah….. Just saying that any king choosing “Charles”, in line with the french kings, ( what do you think “Louis” is based on… ) was… not the best of choices.
They didn’t have the easiest of times, but given the choices they had, they done fucked up. Hard.
They were “Weak Kings” ,,,, which… well… Jug-Ears adopting their Royal Name……
Not that this is news…. In the 90’s I hung out with people in the UK who were… Classic Labour, and who *prayed* for Charly to conk out before Brenda…
90’s… that’s a *long* time ago, and even us “socialist” “Young Ones” pegged him as a Bad Deal….
Each country their dues, of course.
But as our Queen Juliana, and a generation later Beatrix stated to Brenda when they both decided to Abdicate for “fresh blood” instead of Hanging On, and Brenda chose to comment on it: “My Turf, Bitch…”
Because the dutch Oranges are closer in lineage, and *can* overrule Jug-ears Charlie when it comes to family matters when it comes to Royalty…
And the dutch line is *verrah, vwerrah thinnish* and there because Napoleon and having them saves a Lot of Trouble locally.
Charlemagne, Charles the Bald and Charles the Victorious weren’t weak, though the others were a mixed sabretache.
Would you have preferred he chose King Philip, George or Arthur?
Grikath said:
“Your King chose to go with “Charles” … Given the performance of the previous two with the same name…”
Charles II played a bad hand very well. From an impoverished loser, shunted from one place to another whenever he became a political embarrassment, he got his kingdom back, successfully played a brilliant balancing act between his supporters and those who had been his opponents, and kept both his throne and his head. He even managed to sneak in a bit of religious tolerance, which was a rare thing then.
Bloody good going for that time.
And he got lots of gorgeous totty, despite being an ugly bugger.
The worst thing about him was his failure to produce a legitimate heir, leaving us with the gormless James II. But whether that was Charles’ fault depends on whether Catherine was capable of bearing a child even if he’s shagged her more often. She did have three miscarriages, but her sister-in-law Mary of Modena had six stillbirths and another three who only lasted a few days, but she eventually produced James III, so Charles should probably have tried a bit more often.
You’d really have to ask Brenda why she named her first-born Charles, but now it’s too late.
It’s a ridiculous institution.
The institution is not the occupant. And it is far less ridiculous than, say, the French elective monarchy…
Can you imagine Katie Hopkins in da House ?
Can’t sleep, Katie Hopkins will eat me
That’s only a nightmare if she starts in the wrong place.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised to learn that two tier Kier is discourteous as well as useless.
Parliament Act motherfuckers. Use it 5 seconds after the Lords block something. Let them sit around talking and then just drop it. Repeatedly. Make it very clear we’re going to ignore them.
If they want The Lords to minimise democratic disparity, shouldn’t they kick out loads of Lords after every election?
It’s been a nonsense since they stopped it being hereditary.