Roz
500+ Posts
So the "Queen's speech" is actually written by whom? The leader of the party that got the most votes?
-
CONTACT US if you have any problems registering for the forums.
UK Election Results (2017)
- Thread starter Pauline
- Start date
-
- Tags
- elections united kingdom
So the "Queen's speech" is actually written by whom? The leader of the party that got the most votes?
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Typically yes, though if they don't have an outright majority themselves, they have to show they have a commitment from other MPs that would be enough to form a government (e.g. in this case evidence of an agreeement with the DUP). If they cannot (or choose not to) form a government, then the next largest party is invited to attempt to form a government.
The party that forms the government (with them at the head of it) gets to write the queen's speech.
veronicafrance
100+ Posts
That's not the reason -- it's a Twitter hoax. The real reason for the delay is the talks with the DUP.
Pauline
Forums Admin
They are rewriting it because of the election results and the DUP negotiations and then it takes several days for the new speech to be printed. Not Twitter - BBC Radio 4 news.
They also said both parties prepare a queens speech ahead of time, but they didn't prepare for a hung parliament.
Pauline
Forums Admin
Here is a funny tidbit. In the UK if you are not in favour of maintaining the Royal family, you are a Republican!
PatrickLondon
100+ Posts
The vexed issue of royal finances......
Back in the mists of time, the Norman Conquest decreed that the Crown owned everything: but grants of land and other sources of revenue were made to assorted underlings on the understanding that the power and wealth they got from it required a duty of service, loyalty and the supply of warriors and wealth to the monarch as and when required. The point of Domesday Book was as much to show the rich and mighty just how much benefit they had from the Crown as vice versa. Over time, these benefits came to be seen as rights (predominantly of the rich and powerful interests like the barons, the Church and the merchant guilds of the City of London), though that didn't stop the rich and powerful being as exacting over their underlings - and Magna Carta and its associated charters recognised those rights (of the rich and powerful) and the primacy of those rights and the rule of law over the monarch. Also over time, it came to be accepted that the Crown was not only bound by law but needed parliamentary approval for extra taxes; Charles I's attempts to undo all that led to the Civil Wars of the 17th century and the final establishment of parliamentary sovereignty. By the 18th century, the separation of the finances of Crown (as government) and the royal family (both personal and for state ceremonial and the like) became greater, culminating in the settlement of George III that the government Treasury should receive the income from the Crown Estates rather than the Royal Household, but in return Parliament would grant the "Civil List" payment for the state and personal expenses of the monarch and royal family from the totality of general government income. Over time, this money has been tied to support for the public functions of the institution, rather than a personal salary (and to confuse the issue, the royal family and individual royals have separately been able to build up inherited private estates and income for their personal business). But about 10-15 years ago, it was decided that the Civil List would be replaced by a percentage of the Crown Estates income, so it all depends on whether you think the inherited rights and incomes from the Crown Estates count as belonging to the taxpayers, the Crown (as the government) or the Crown (as the monarch and family).
There are also grey areas about the use for supposedly state business of various services run on other government budgets, such as RAF transport and so on, and debate about maintenance of assorted Crown (rather than family) residences, and exactly how many assorted office and household staff it takes to keep the state visits, garden parties, openings and unveilings going, and all the associated paperwork. But there are annual reports about what is spent on what, for those who want to delve into it.
Back in the mists of time, the Norman Conquest decreed that the Crown owned everything: but grants of land and other sources of revenue were made to assorted underlings on the understanding that the power and wealth they got from it required a duty of service, loyalty and the supply of warriors and wealth to the monarch as and when required. The point of Domesday Book was as much to show the rich and mighty just how much benefit they had from the Crown as vice versa. Over time, these benefits came to be seen as rights (predominantly of the rich and powerful interests like the barons, the Church and the merchant guilds of the City of London), though that didn't stop the rich and powerful being as exacting over their underlings - and Magna Carta and its associated charters recognised those rights (of the rich and powerful) and the primacy of those rights and the rule of law over the monarch. Also over time, it came to be accepted that the Crown was not only bound by law but needed parliamentary approval for extra taxes; Charles I's attempts to undo all that led to the Civil Wars of the 17th century and the final establishment of parliamentary sovereignty. By the 18th century, the separation of the finances of Crown (as government) and the royal family (both personal and for state ceremonial and the like) became greater, culminating in the settlement of George III that the government Treasury should receive the income from the Crown Estates rather than the Royal Household, but in return Parliament would grant the "Civil List" payment for the state and personal expenses of the monarch and royal family from the totality of general government income. Over time, this money has been tied to support for the public functions of the institution, rather than a personal salary (and to confuse the issue, the royal family and individual royals have separately been able to build up inherited private estates and income for their personal business). But about 10-15 years ago, it was decided that the Civil List would be replaced by a percentage of the Crown Estates income, so it all depends on whether you think the inherited rights and incomes from the Crown Estates count as belonging to the taxpayers, the Crown (as the government) or the Crown (as the monarch and family).
There are also grey areas about the use for supposedly state business of various services run on other government budgets, such as RAF transport and so on, and debate about maintenance of assorted Crown (rather than family) residences, and exactly how many assorted office and household staff it takes to keep the state visits, garden parties, openings and unveilings going, and all the associated paperwork. But there are annual reports about what is spent on what, for those who want to delve into it.
Pauline
Forums Admin
And the reason it is funny, is because it is usually a politically left wing person who is a Republican! I should have explained that. (Because Republicans in the US are very right wing.)
PatrickLondon
100+ Posts
And in the Latin European countries, "republican" tends to mean anti-clerical and pro formal democracy, not necessarily tied to left-wing economics or attitudes to business, or to modern social liberalism. So in France there was a party in the Third Republic often referred to as "Républicain Modéré, mais pas modérément républicain". which moved from centre left to centre right. Only a few years ago, Sarkozy pulled the bulk of the conservative and Gaullist groups into a single party modelled on the American Republicans, which has just been almost as squashed as the socialists. And in Germany there was a shortlived extreme right Republikaner party.
Truly, labels can mean anything you like......
Truly, labels can mean anything you like......
PatrickLondon
100+ Posts
There's been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about the timing of the State Opening and speech for the new Parliament, because of the uncertainty over what the government will need to do or not do to make sure the formal motion on the speech (in effect, the Commons approval of the government's overall legislative programme for the year, and therefore a vote of confidence) gets through, and I'm not up on what has or hasn't been agreed with the DUP.
Meanwhile, politely and less politely coded warnings to Mrs M are surfacing within her own party, as you might imagine....
Meanwhile, politely and less politely coded warnings to Mrs M are surfacing within her own party, as you might imagine....
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
Yes, they've said this year's queen's speech will double up, to cover 2 years, so no queen's speech in 2018. Tactically it may avoid a no confidence vote for next year's queen's speech. Potentially ambitious though, as it's not certain they can hold it all together for 2 years (as Patrick's links allude, the vultures are circling)
Rome Addict
100+ Posts
The Grenfell Towers fire catastrophe may bring about the no confidence vote a lot sooner than ever expected.
And The EU may just give the Brits a taste of just how bad a deal no deal would be. The attitude in Paris and Rome (quick trips) to Brexit is " the bus leaves at 10, be on it".
And The EU may just give the Brits a taste of just how bad a deal no deal would be. The attitude in Paris and Rome (quick trips) to Brexit is " the bus leaves at 10, be on it".
aap519
100+ Posts
Ian Sutton
1000+ Posts
In an ideal world, this allows for meritocratic appointments, people who are far more skilled in that area than a career politician. However the potential for abuse or nepotism/cronyism definitely exists.