Will May get her Queen's Speech through Parliament?

Please treat other members in a constructive and friendly manner: Our Community Guidelines.
  • The first big parliamentary test for Theresa May's minority government will come at the end of the month when MPs vote on the Queen's Speech.

    Will it pass?

    So, this will be the first real test for May. She has one week to cobble together government policy and get it approved by parliament before it can be presented by the Queen at the end of the month.

    Will May pass this first hurdle? Will the DUP actually bother to turn up at Westminster? They don't usually?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I think it may pass but there will be a lot of amendments. I do hope that Labour and the Tories don't simply oppose everything that the other side puts forward but have the common sense to admit when a policy makes sense and come to some sort of agreement on it.

    It's a pretty vain hope I know but these could turn out to be dangerous times economically, if the world recession many have been forecasting for a while happens.

  • I guess it will be a test of the DUP's "loyalty"....if they don't start problems now, perhaps it'll be alright on the night, so to speak.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Speech as now been delayed as the government work out how they handle the DUP and what gets ditched from their manifesto.

    Speech delay

    I wonder if "delays" will become the new norm?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • The latest delays are being put down to the possibility that the vellum isn't ready. Seems it isn't only the voters being hung out to dry. Another feature of our Ruritanian non-constitution means a further potential delay, because queenie doesn't want to miss the Ascot races. You couldn't make it up!

  • Really?? Is that in the Mail or something?

    Can't she miss the bloody horse racing just for once?

    Just so members know, although I don't have strong opinions on the subject, I guess I am a Republican of the "diet coke" variety... I would quite like a change to our Head of State setup, but am happy with things as they are, for the moment. But, not if horse racing takes priority over out country's important affairs.


    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I'm a republican on steroids. Come to the dark side ... :evil:

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore

  • I just don't fancy the idea of a president, dunno why, just doesn't appeal to me. :P

    Young boys in the park jumpers for goalpost that's what footballs all about isn't it.

  • I just don't fancy the idea of a president, dunno why, just doesn't appeal to me. :P

    Under different circumstances, I could probably make a good argument there but as America has President Trump....;)^^

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • My grandmother was a royalist, my grandfather was not. I think I'm getting my independence genes from him.

    I lived in a Republic with a Prime Minister and now live in one with a Prez. The big thing is they are politicians, so they are as bad as absolute monarchs in many ways if they have enough voters to get them in on democratic elections. Just because you have democratic elections doesn't mean you have any of that once Jabba the Hutt and his mates get into power.

    I think monarchs are anachronistic icons. I think heads of state need to be more aware of the fact that they get elected by the people and that they are supposed to do a job, not spend most of their time shifting the people's cash around to suit themselves.

    It's a sair fecht, when you think of it. :(

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore

  • Well in the UK at least, the Head of State in nowadays a mere 'title'.... in practical terms, the leader of the government is the 'real' UK head of state....and guess what - the people don't elect Him or Her into that position either. In fact, in the UK, one cannot really claim the government has been 'democratically' elected, because selecting the leader of a political Party does not involve the electorate, which, in a General Election, only vote for a constituency representative i.e. an MP to represent them in Parliament, and the Party with the most MPs generally get to form the government...........but it is a very long time since any 'ruling' Party in the UK commanded even 50% of the vote, never mind more than 50%...to truly reflect the will of the people.

  • This is why I hate politics and why I think a new way of administering governments should be created. The present system, no matter which way anyone in the world twists it, is causing more trouble than it's worth to the people. If a system is worthless to the people, it should be junked.

    However, socialism has turned into a kind of survival line for overpopulated nations and so getting rid of politics will not be possible so long as people are dependent on it for their survival.

    The system itself should be independent of whether or not certain sectors of the population need to use it to undermine others.

    There is a need for a sort of operating system for administration of government that is non-partisan and self regulating and that can be audited for efficiency and corruption by objective tests. And, like any operating system, it should be fully customisable to the needs of the culture or civilization that will be making use of it. People who work with the system should do so as a profession and a job and not as a conduit to wealth gained by dint of taxation fiddling and expense accounts. (New opportunity for some brilliant programmer who can create a foolproof control system for human fallibility and greed. He will no doubt be assassinated by the extant elite as soon as he waves his blueprint at potential customers.)

    Humanity has passed the age of politicking and is headed into the choppy waters of anarchy. Not in the modern sense but in the dictionary definition of pure chaos. When that happens, gangsters tend to rise to power as they have the wealth, gained from drug dealing and various hedonistic related activities, to gain power over those who have made them rich.

    It won't be the first time one corrupt system has overtaken another or one set of bastards has declared victory over another set of equal but differently oriented set of bastards.

    The democratic election system seems fundamentally flawed, on both logical and practical grounds. It simply isn't very democratic in the long run, although it seems so in the short run up to election. The fact that numerical minorities are stuffed by it and numerical majorities are victorious makes "democracy" a bit of a damp squib when it comes to actual implementation of the so-called vox populi. Just because it's populi for a numerical majority doesn't mean it's inherently fair or workable or even sane. The most unspeakable cockups have been achieved by democratic elections, as well as the most seemingly wonderful changes. Ultimately, most of these things fade as soon as the elected candidates try and actually do anything about the problems that beset the nation.

    It is therefore as obvious as the wart on the witch's nose, to me at least, that the way humans carry on "politics" is doomed to failure and often gets them embroiled in wars, devastated by poverty and subject to injustice.

    A huge problem is wealth when wealth is the determiner for power. If a system could be devised that ran like an operating system, the system's integrity would not recognise these essentially human aspects and being powerful would cut no ice in the effective operation of administration and the contributions by means of tax alone would be subject to rigorous distribution to services and resources rather than down a chute into the personal coffers of the elite.

    Yes, any system is open to hacking and criminal tampering, but if you also have secondary systems for the thwarting of this the way you do on all operating systems, you'd be better off than relying on someone with many gleaming plastic teeth telling you they are deeply interested in your welfare.

    I think such a system would work very well, as it has worked for the computer age, but I don't know whether humans are ready for such an elegant solution to their essentially human problems, I suspect that humanity is too diverse when it comes to self-directed existence and is more inclined to a whoopee cushion than it is eager to be seated upon a foundation that has efficiency and honesty as its presiding features.

    Perhaps, some day, some programmer will think of a Linux for politics and offer this to the world. People will say he is mad. :S

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore