Yesterday's state opening of Parliament looked like the last gasp of a dying era.
The absence of the Queen made it clear that it is inevitable that her reign will end sometime in the not too distant future. At 96 anyone's time is limited.
Prince Charles looked bored, sounded bored, and simply highlighted the absurdity of a world of baubles, bangles and stupid rituals, all of which seem utterly meaningless now.
As second in line, Prince William looked like a spare part.
And the Prime Minister and Keir Starmer both know that their fates are going to in some way be determined by fixed penalty notices. It is quite possible neither will be around in a year's time.
The pomp is, I presume, meant to indicate permanence when all is in a state of flux. It failed to deliver as badly as the government did in the actual speech in that case. What was meant to indicate the perpetual nature of government looked tired, worn, out of touch, irrelevant and in dire need of being swept away so that a modern government could be created, not based on ritual fawning to an establishment of those with retired military privilege and Ruritanian costumes always intended to indicate that only a few could partake in this process.
I am rarely inclined to feel especially revolutionary, but watching this, and hearing a speech in which the government said it would tackle the cost of living crisis and announced nothing at all to make that happen it was hard not to feel as if we need to clear all this away and start again.
I doubt I will be on any barricade. It's not my style. I do my demonstrating online, by and large, whilst wondering for how long that too will be permitted. But the sense that rising anger at a government so indifferent, so out of touch with need, and so bereft of ideas on how to tackle absolutely anything that is important might just lead to real change was hard to suppress. I would prefer this be done peacefully, of course. That will always be my wish. But that there is a need for urgent and massive reform became visually very obvious yesterday. If the state and people of this country are to remain in a fruitful relationship in this country it has to happen.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
99.9% of the public don’t watch the state opening of Parliament and have no awareness or interest in the rituals with the majority at work. Few will share your sentiment whether right or wrong.
Politely, you assume 0.1% watch the news or see a paper
Don’t be ridiculous
All worthy sentiments.
However, let’s look at the Philipines & the malign role played by the media in ensuring that a kleptocrat and murderer was elected president.
The UK media is equally feral (& right wing/quasi-fascist). This points to yet more populists being installed into gov’ – basically the ones with the biggest & poshest gob (& obvs’ those that pander to the UK scum media). Also they will have a nice pile of new repressive laws to keep UK serfs & peasants in line.
Unreasonable? take a look at the monstering of Starmer, I do not like this man but the entire beergate saga is a synthetic UK media construct.
Mad, bad, sad days.
Agree entirely with your opinion of Sir Keir Starmer Mike. I don’t know him, and have never voted for the Labour Party in my life, but you are absolutely correct in saying that the whole “Beergate” story has been brought about only by a corrupt media.
The State opening of Parliament yesterday was a freak show in my view with the summoning of MPs to the HoL taking on a rather macabre tint as the mega rich are really in charge at the moment.
Other than that that, well put – nothing to disagree with in my view.
Certainly a laughing stock for anybody other than British. The irrelevance of the “constitutional monarchy” is made glaringly obvious by this charade. The only constitutional bit is for the monarch to sign Acts of Parliament on pieces of parchment in order for laws to be passed. Charles, to his credit, has challenged ministers in the past by writing quite erudite letters on different policies. He is good on climate change and environmental concerns. Will he sign legislation that runs counter to his genuine concerns on these matters?
Regarding Charles Windsor, I was involved on assorted renwable energy projects on the Isles of Scilly – a fife of Charles Windsor. The only way to get the islands to zero carbon is a combo of PV and wind. I speak as the person that did all the modelling using DNO data. Windsor opposes wind turbines – which means that his envo ideals are very much synthetic. It also means that the Scillies do not have a hope in hell of getting to zero carbon.
I know the Scillies pretty well – and for the life of me cannot see why turbines can’t be used
Interesting to see how indifferent Prince Charles – and previously The Queen have seemed to the speeches they have to deliver.
I would love to know what they think of it all
There’s something utterly ridiculous about having a man deliver a speech talking about rampant poverty, whilst sitting a few feet away from his mother’s bejewelled hat.
Are you dissing the Lord High Supreme Commander?
It was hardly one of Sacha Baron Cohen’s best disguises.