The political reality of Labour in government hit home yesterday.
Starmer was addressed as ‘Prime Minister' by the re-elected Speaker.
His party sat on benches most in it have never visited before.
Sunak stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box, looking smaller than ever, but less smarmy than before.
Just about filling the benches behind him were a greatly diminished party, waiting to tear themselves rather than the government apart. They looked shell-shocked to be where they were.
Ed Davey enjoyed being on the front bench, below the aisle, the leader of the largest third party for generations. He, and his party, seemed considerably more focussed on the task in hand than the Tories did.
Stephen Flynn for the SNP looked embarrassed to be sitting so far back, so reduced is his grouping.
Adrian Ramsay for the Greens could not quite believe where he was, and called for cooperative working, which is not going to happen in a Parliament with a majority party as big as this one has.
Farage made a fool of himself, and forget he was meant to speak for his party and not just himself. It was a bad start. It might get worse if it becomes clear that the party he owns (not leads) put up fake people as candidates in the election, as seems possible at present. The consequences could be massive.
And then they all had to be sworn in, one after each other, to declare their allegiance to the King. Jeremy Corbyn was heard saying what a waste of time this was. He was right. What it made clear is how much of this is theatre, and how at the end of the day the government will do all it can to reinforce the power of the Establishment in maintaining the status quo, whatever these eager new members might want.
I want an effective parliament. This charade will not deliver that. By sometime in the autumn the normal process of very few members attending any debate will have become the norm. The illusion of parliamentary power will have been crushed by the power of the Labour whips. Starmer will get whatever Starmer wants even though only twenty per cent of the people eligible to vote in the country actually chose a Labour candidate. The brief appearance of choice that an election provides will have dissipated. We could do so much better than this.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
There are some aspects of the theatre, such as the opening of parliament and black rod which can be used to give history lessons. They are one off events and can be kept without stopping the business of parliament. As for the rest of it, to quote Corbyn, what a waste of time. I don’t swear allegiance to a company or CEO when I start a job.
The current building needs to be turned into a museum and a new building put up somewhere in the middle of the country that is judged to be nearest to most seats [Birmingham?]. Something like the one the GLC use.
It won’t happen, but I can dream.
I think a lot of us share that dream. Maybe when enough of us push for it, proper change will happen.
I would actually go further than a single centre away from London. The EU alternates between Brussels and Strasbourg every six months. I would like to see the “seat of government” change every six months throughout a parliament. 6 months in each of the regions. London, Exeter, Birmingham, Ipswich, Sheffield, Liverpool, Hull, Newcastle,Inverness, Belfast, Conway etc ( pick your own regional preferences!) The idea being that if they had to endure the lived experiences in these regions with poor public transport lack of access to the arts etc etc then maybe we might actually see some investment outside of London
This takes no account of the near impossibility of moving that many people and their families around like that, or the cost
“…the middle of the country”. (Birmingham?)
England as Britain’s geography needs work again, I see!
The worst part of it was it was totally unintended as a slight but nevertheless simultaneously diminished the other “equal partner”, in this insidious colonisation; by England’s establishment.
It is becoming easier every day to understand why the Northern Irish “Troubles” went the way they did.
If they could even move (ever so gently) into the 20th Century it would be an improvement. Then if they learn to grow up and behave and look after the people of this country we would allow them to join us in the 21st Century. Fat chance.
We need a civic alternative as a counter force of progressiveness to show how out of touch Westminster is, how dictatorial and how anti-democratic.
Anyone got any other options?
Stephen Flynn shouldn’t be embarrassed at sitting so far back. Scottish people shouldn’t be in another country’s parliament at all.
More and more people in Scotland are disillusioned by Westminster, don’t identify as British (do identify, according to the recent Census, as Scottish) and wonder what the heck our people are doing in England’s parliament being ignored and/or laughed at.
Hundreds of thousands of us have had it and are refraining from voting at all in English General Elections. The number of Scots voting in Westminster elections reduces every 5 years.
Our country is Scotland; our Parliament is in Edinburgh.
Looks like the English are pretty damn scunnered with their own parliament too!
It’s time the English learned what scunnered means…
Scunnered:
to feel aversion to
to produce a feeling of disgust or loathing in
a strong dislike
an object of dislike or nuisance
Example: “Bugger aff, I’m fair scunnered wi’ ye.”
🙂
“What it made clear is how much of this is theatre”
Unfortunately, theatre and pageantry are the things the English seem to excel at with no trouble. It will be difficult to dismantle this archaic function. In the US House of Representatives, all the members (with the exception of the Speaker of the House) are sworn in at one time and it takes five minutes or less.
The farce today is that so many are making clear that they are swearing allegiance under suffrance
“Most MPs “take the oath”, holding whichever sacred text they choose and saying: “I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
If I had to say the above with my hand on a bible, I would be there on sufferance too as Charlie & Willy are both pretty much not-so-well trained baboons.
At least in the USA one is swearing or affirming to uphold the USA Constitution.
The English have been scunnered with the Tories for a number of years now and have finally told the bampots (idiots/fools/nutcases) to sling their hooks.
I think, very quickly, the Scots are going to become just as sick of Starmer and his Tory tribute act.
Privatising the NHS. NHS data being seen as an ‘economic asset’ and Streeting’s ‘the NHS is no longer simply a public service department” but an ‘economic growth department’, is not going down well here.
Neither is the Labour plan to impose nuclear power stations on Scotland against our wishes. The Scottish government maintains a ban new nuclear power stations. We generate about 97% of energy consumption from renewables (onshore/offshore wind, hydro-electric and, increasingly, marine energy). You might ask, why would Scotland need nuclear power reactors sited here given that figure? Well, Labour plans to use Scotland as a powerhouse – a power generator for the “UK”. We are aware, of course, that in his book the “UK” means “England”.
The guy came to Scotland on Sunday and talked about ‘respect’ for Scotland. I highly doubt he knows the meaning of the word.
P.S. He used the back door into and out of Bute House (our FM’s official residence) – too much of a coward to go through the front door. Johnson used the front door on arrival but crapped himself and left by the back door! (There were protesters in the street on both occasions).
Much to agree with
It won’t happen, but it should be a high priority for everyone in the UK: the creation of a written Constitution to replace the chaotic present UK notion of a “Constitution”. Gavin Esler in his latest book “Britain Is Better Than This” memorably describes it as a “metaphor for a constitution” and this does chime for me: in its multiple opinions, ancient customs etc it gives the appearance of a Constitution, yet it is full of loopholes and assumptions that everyone will be a “decent chap” when it’s perfectly clear that said chap is a lying self-seeker bent on doing whatever he/she wants, even if it breaches International Laws and Treaties.
It’s also a misnomer: in its metaphorical existence it’s an English “Constitution”, not a British one, but no UK Government will accept that distinction. What then are the devolved nations to make of that? It implies that the devolved nations are sub-species whose history, politics, religions, culture and laws form no meaningful part of UK governance and can simply be ignored. Take the case of Scotland: its people have supported Labour (perhaps in order to ensure that the Tories are kicked out of control of Westminster governance – time will tell) and their rejection of the SNP reflects a discontent with elements of its internal structure and conduct (a husband and wife in control of a family business is understandable, but not in a political party currently ruling at Holyrood). But does it reflect the peoples’ view on independence?
Clearly severe damage has been done to both the SNP and the Independence movement. However if there is still a sizeable support for Independence (and we’ll have to wait for polls that have generally understated that support), it falls to the people of Scotland to create an environment to develop a coherent strategy in the journey to Independence. The Claim of Rights (1689 to today) states that sovereignty lies with the people of Scotland and there are enough people-led initiatives active here (creation of a Central Bank, a Constitution and other pillars of government) to make a coherent plan provided they are brought together under a single body (indeed Common Weal mapped it all out ahead of 2014). It was done in the 1980/90s with the Constitutional Convention which laid the groundwork for devolution in conjunction with the Labour Party which was ascendant here at that time. A legal route to secession can be found even though Westminster will claim its overlordship of Scotland. International Law will not look kindly on a state which claims that a “union of consent” can exist without any right of secession.
But will Westminster care, Ken?
I wish I knew.
In response to Richard’s question: “But will Westminster care, Ken?” Of course it won’t care: no matter which party is in power in Westminster, they all view the devolved nations as English puppet states. It is crystal clear that even advisory referenda to establish whether a majority favours independence will be “forbidden”, as Starmer has already stated. Since when has anyone other than the Scottish people had the right to forbid Scotland or any other devolved state to secede from the Union? It will be up to the Scottish people in the first instance, not the Scottish political parties, to come up with a workable solution. My hunch is that this will involve the Claim of Rights, which has been in force in Scots Law since 1698 and has been reaffirmed by both Holyrood and Westminster, and whose meaning is crystal clear. Given the current state of political parties in Scotland, I suspect that they will only become involved once the hard graft has been done.
Much to agree with
Everyone agrees the SNP is behind the curve on this. Like most politicians they now seem to believe in what is not possible.
From The Independent:
“The hullabaloo for electoral reform has been surprisingly muted, after what was arithmetically the most disproportionate election since the universal franchise. Labour won two-thirds of the seats in the House of Commons with one-third of the votes.”
There may be several reasons for the subdued response.
1. Labour supporters of proportional representation were always likely to be less vocal after winning under the existing rules than they were before.
2. Liberal Democrats were surprised and delighted to have worked out how to achieve a proportional result for themselves under first-past-the-post: they won 12 per cent of seats on 11 per cent of the votes. Even so, Ed Davey insisted that he was “a democrat” and would prefer a system in which Nigel Farage had more MPs than he did, as Reform UK won 14 per cent of the vote.
3. Nigel Farage is volubly in favour of proportional representation; this is bound to make Labour and Lib Dem supporters less voluble.
4. Although the result seemed quite mind-bendingly disproportionate, it did not feel unfair. A lot of Reform voters knew what they were doing: they were told that a vote for Reform was a vote for Keir Starmer as prime minister, so they got what they knew they were voting for.
one good thing they have done so far is remove their objection to the ICC going ahead to possibly issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant for war crimes. Apparently the UK, US and or course Israel had been objecting that the ICC had no jurisdiction over Palestine and that has held up the possible issuing of warrants. It is inconceivable that the ICC didn’t first establish that they did in fact have jurisdiction but at this stage anything they can throw in the way they have been doing. Of course the US still remains. But I remain hopeful. I imagine the Starmer moves comes after realizing how many more seats he could have won if he had been more balanced in his condemnation of the “plausible genocide” in Gaza but lets hope this leads to further moves by the UK like restoring funding to UNWRA and banning further weapons shipments to Israel.
I will be doing more on this tomorrow, I suspect
I don’t know if a Facebook link is permissible here, but I was super-impressed with Clive Lewis’s oath.
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/z9GpHayEUMcKuuou/
I have told him so