The Queen’s Speech

 

Cat and Canary

Her Majesty opened the post-election Parliament Thursday morning. On the procession from the Commons to the Lords, Mr. Corbyn and the PM had nary a word to say to each other. But the look on the PM’s face was one of the cat who devoured the canary.

The speech, which is written for the Queen by the majority, dealt mostly with Brexit and the problems of the NHS, which throughout the campaign was alternately described as the “best in the world” and an abomination — often by the same people and in the same sentence. A vote on the government’s Brexit bill, which would rule out an extension and set a final divorce date, is expected to come as early as tomorrow.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 44 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    colleenb: And isn’t there something where they knock on the Commons to be admitted?

    The list of ceremonial traditions is long. The day begins with the Yeomen of the Guard “searching” the cellars of Westminster for explosives, a nod to the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. After the members of both Houses have gathered in their appropriate chambers, an MP is taken “hostage” by the Lord Chamberlain of Buckingham Palace to “ensure the safe return” of the monarch.

    The monarch then usually arrives by coach. But this year, since the General Election was held in December and Her Majesty is 93, she took the car.

    When the Usher of the Black Rod approaches the Commons (he’s the person whose job it is to summon the members of the Commons to hear the monarch speak from the throne) the doorkeeper will then order the door slammed in his face to symbolize the independence between Parliament and the sovereign. After the procession from one house to the other, the Queen will always begin her speech with these words, “My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon your counsels.”

    After the speech, Members of the Commons retreat to their House to debate the speech. Traditionally a member of the Government party, chosen well in advance, will be recognized to give a humorous speech.

     

    • #31
  2. danok1 Member
    danok1
    @danok1

    Percival (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):
    And isn’t there something where they knock on the Commons to be admitted?

    The Gentleman (or as of late, Lady) of the Black Rod summons the members of the House of Commons to the to the Lords’ chamber to hear it. When the Black Rod shows up to make the announcement, they slam the door in her face. Why? Because they can.

    Yeah, as I noted above that part wasn’t captured in the video. Wish it had been.

    After the Commons slams the door, Black Rod knocks three times with his/her rod. The s/he is admitted to the chamber.

    • #32
  3. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    EJHill (View Comment):

    She: Scotland is shaping up as a serious challenge to Westminster. I’ll be interested to see what Prime Minister Boris makes of it.

    I don’t think it’s serious at all. Sturgeon is mistaking dislike of Labour for support for independence. It’s what politicians do. And she can caterwaul all she wants. She doesn’t have the votes in Westminster and with an 80-seat majority Boris won’t care. It’s not like he has to worry about the Scottish votes he’s already not getting.

    I can’t think of any reason why Scotland shouldn’t be independent if that’s what the Scottish people want. Same as Brexit really. 

    • #33
  4. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Yeesh, after that bracing opening about prioritizing Brexit, the rest of the speech could have been taken from any lib-Dem playbook. Increase the minimum wage. Increase education funding. Decrease carbon emissions. No parking fees for NHS hospital visits for the poor?? … Ugh. Everything’s a free lunch. 

    • #34
  5. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Percival (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):
    And isn’t there something where they knock on the Commons to be admitted?

    The Gentleman (or as of late, Lady) of the Black Rod summons the members of the House of Commons to the to the Lords’ chamber to hear it. When the Black Rod shows up to make the announcement, they slam the door in her face. Why? Because they can.

    Yeah, yech I hate that they have the gal prancing around in a man’s outfit. And you got to admit that Black Rod does not sound like it should be played by a gal in any circumstance. I know, I know, I’m so old-fashioned and just plain old. Was Black Rod ever seen holding up coaches in the old days by the way? 

    • #35
  6. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Percival (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):
    And isn’t there something where they knock on the Commons to be admitted?

    The Gentleman (or as of late, Lady) of the Black Rod summons the members of the House of Commons to the to the Lords’ chamber to hear it. When the Black Rod shows up to make the announcement, they slam the door in her face. Why? Because they can.

    Yeah, yech I hate that they have the gal prancing around in a man’s outfit. And you got to admit that Black Rod does not sound like it should be played by a gal in any circumstance. I know, I know, I’m so old-fashioned and just plain old. Was Black Rod ever seen holding up coaches in the old days by the way?

    “Lady of the Black Rod” sounds like a comic book villain. Probably an enemy of someone like Conan or Red Sonja.

    • #36
  7. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Charles Mark: I can’t think of any reason why Scotland shouldn’t be independent if that’s what the Scottish people want.

    One, they had their vote and lost. Two, it’s not “independence” if you’re trading Westminster for Brussels. Three, they are bleeding red ink.

    They rely on two things for revenue: North Sea oil (that is most definitely an “unwoke” carbon fuel) and the Barnett Formula which assures Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an automatic and higher spending allocation than England. If Westminster adds £1B in spending for England, they have to cut a check to the Scots of £1B + 10.34% x 99.7% or £103M more than what’s spent in England. It was developed by Joel Barnett, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury in 1978 as a temporary fix to the political problem of devolution of power to the regional parliaments. It was so temporary no one’s been able to kill it.

    • #37
  8. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Charles Mark: I can’t think of any reason why Scotland shouldn’t be independent if that’s what the Scottish people want.

    One, they had their vote and lost. Two, it’s not “independence” if your trading Westminster for Brussels. Three, they are bleeding red ink.

    They rely on two things for revenue: North Sea oil (that is most definitely an “unwholesome” carbon fuel) and the Barnett Formula which assures Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an automatic and higher spending allocation than England. If Westminster adds £1B in spending for England, they have to cut a check to the Scots of £1B + 10.34% x 99.7% or £103M more than what’s spent in England. It was developed by Joel Barnett, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury In 1978 as a temporary fix to the political problem of devolution of power to the regional parliaments. It was so temporary no one’s been able to kill it.

    Your first point is a fair one. There should be clear evidence of majority support (within Scotland ) for independence before any further referendum takes place. Also, the fact that Scotland voted fairly strongly to remain in the EU is a significant change in circumstances since the previous referendum. I’m a firm Eurosceptic and that wouldn’t be my way of thinking but the opposite view is perfectly legitimate. 

    Your economic points are entirely valid and may be good reasons why a majority will vote against independence, given another opportunity. Or maybe, like Brexiteers, they will think their economy can take the shock of leaving and return to strength in due course. That’s essentially a matter for debate in any campaign either to have a referendum or to win it. 

    PS I am halfway through the Netflix movie “Outlaw King” -about Robert Bruce fighting for Scottish freedom from perfidious Albion- so maybe that is sharpening my inherent Nationalism!

     

    • #38
  9. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Charles Mark: I can’t think of any reason why Scotland shouldn’t be independent if that’s what the Scottish people want.

    One, they had their vote and lost. Two, it’s not “independence” if your trading Westminster for Brussels. Three, they are bleeding red ink.

    They rely on two things for revenue: North Sea oil (that is most definitely an “unwholesome” carbon fuel) and the Barnett Formula which assures Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an automatic and higher spending allocation than England. If Westminster adds £1B in spending for England, they have to cut a check to the Scots of £1B + 10.34% x 99.7% or £103M more than what’s spent in England. It was developed by Joel Barnett, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury In 1978 as a temporary fix to the political problem of devolution of power to the regional parliaments. It was so temporary no one’s been able to kill it.

    Your first point is a fair one. There should be clear evidence of majority support (within Scotland ) for independence before any further referendum takes place. Also, the fact that Scotland voted fairly strongly to remain in the EU is a significant change in circumstances since the previous referendum. I’m a firm Eurosceptic and that wouldn’t be my way of thinking but the opposite view is perfectly legitimate.

    Your economic points are entirely valid and may be good reasons why a majority will vote against independence, given another opportunity. Or maybe, like Brexiteers, they will think their economy can take the shock of leaving and return to strength in due course. That’s essentially a matter for debate in any campaign either to have a referendum or to win it.

    PS I am halfway through the Netflix movie “Outlaw King” -about Robert Bruce fighting for Scottish freedom from perfidious Albion- so maybe that is sharpening my inherent Nationalism!

     

    Do you recommend Outlaw King?

    • #39
  10. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Charles Mark: I can’t think of any reason why Scotland shouldn’t be independent if that’s what the Scottish people want.

    One, they had their vote and lost. Two, it’s not “independence” if your trading Westminster for Brussels. Three, they are bleeding red ink.

    They rely on two things for revenue: North Sea oil (that is most definitely an “unwholesome” carbon fuel) and the Barnett Formula which assures Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an automatic and higher spending allocation than England. If Westminster adds £1B in spending for England, they have to cut a check to the Scots of £1B + 10.34% x 99.7% or £103M more than what’s spent in England. It was developed by Joel Barnett, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury In 1978 as a temporary fix to the political problem of devolution of power to the regional parliaments. It was so temporary no one’s been able to kill it.

    Your first point is a fair one. There should be clear evidence of majority support (within Scotland ) for independence before any further referendum takes place. Also, the fact that Scotland voted fairly strongly to remain in the EU is a significant change in circumstances since the previous referendum. I’m a firm Eurosceptic and that wouldn’t be my way of thinking but the opposite view is perfectly legitimate.

    Your economic points are entirely valid and may be good reasons why a majority will vote against independence, given another opportunity. Or maybe, like Brexiteers, they will think their economy can take the shock of leaving and return to strength in due course. That’s essentially a matter for debate in any campaign either to have a referendum or to win it.

    PS I am halfway through the Netflix movie “Outlaw King” -about Robert Bruce fighting for Scottish freedom from perfidious Albion- so maybe that is sharpening my inherent Nationalism!

     

    Do you recommend Outlaw King?

    I do.  I watched it before. Not sure how accurate it is but a good watch if you don’t mind some blood and guts. 

    • #40
  11. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Charles Mark: I can’t think of any reason why Scotland shouldn’t be independent if that’s what the Scottish people want.

    One, they had their vote and lost. Two, it’s not “independence” if your trading Westminster for Brussels. Three, they are bleeding red ink.

    They rely on two things for revenue: North Sea oil (that is most definitely an “unwholesome” carbon fuel) and the Barnett Formula which assures Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an automatic and higher spending allocation than England. If Westminster adds £1B in spending for England, they have to cut a check to the Scots of £1B + 10.34% x 99.7% or £103M more than what’s spent in England. It was developed by Joel Barnett, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury In 1978 as a temporary fix to the political problem of devolution of power to the regional parliaments. It was so temporary no one’s been able to kill it.

    Your first point is a fair one. There should be clear evidence of majority support (within Scotland ) for independence before any further referendum takes place. Also, the fact that Scotland voted fairly strongly to remain in the EU is a significant change in circumstances since the previous referendum. I’m a firm Eurosceptic and that wouldn’t be my way of thinking but the opposite view is perfectly legitimate.

    Your economic points are entirely valid and may be good reasons why a majority will vote against independence, given another opportunity. Or maybe, like Brexiteers, they will think their economy can take the shock of leaving and return to strength in due course. That’s essentially a matter for debate in any campaign either to have a referendum or to win it.

    PS I am halfway through the Netflix movie “Outlaw King” -about Robert Bruce fighting for Scottish freedom from perfidious Albion- so maybe that is sharpening my inherent Nationalism!

     

    Do you recommend Outlaw King?

    I do. I watched it before. Not sure how accurate it is but a good watch if you don’t mind some blood and guts.

    I had to quit watching for that reason. Too much for me.

    • #41
  12. danok1 Member
    danok1
    @danok1

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Charles Mark: I can’t think of any reason why Scotland shouldn’t be independent if that’s what the Scottish people want.

    One, they had their vote and lost. Two, it’s not “independence” if your trading Westminster for Brussels. Three, they are bleeding red ink.

    They rely on two things for revenue: North Sea oil (that is most definitely an “unwholesome” carbon fuel) and the Barnett Formula which assures Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an automatic and higher spending allocation than England. If Westminster adds £1B in spending for England, they have to cut a check to the Scots of £1B + 10.34% x 99.7% or £103M more than what’s spent in England. It was developed by Joel Barnett, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury In 1978 as a temporary fix to the political problem of devolution of power to the regional parliaments. It was so temporary no one’s been able to kill it.

    Your first point is a fair one. There should be clear evidence of majority support (within Scotland ) for independence before any further referendum takes place. Also, the fact that Scotland voted fairly strongly to remain in the EU is a significant change in circumstances since the previous referendum. I’m a firm Eurosceptic and that wouldn’t be my way of thinking but the opposite view is perfectly legitimate.

    Your economic points are entirely valid and may be good reasons why a majority will vote against independence, given another opportunity. Or maybe, like Brexiteers, they will think their economy can take the shock of leaving and return to strength in due course. That’s essentially a matter for debate in any campaign either to have a referendum or to win it.

    PS I am halfway through the Netflix movie “Outlaw King” -about Robert Bruce fighting for Scottish freedom from perfidious Albion- so maybe that is sharpening my inherent Nationalism!

     

    Do you recommend Outlaw King?

    I do. I watched it before. Not sure how accurate it is but a good watch if you don’t mind some blood and guts.

    I had to quit watching for that reason. Too much for me.

    I thought it was good, but I also think it felt too long. Don’t know what I’d cut though. 

    Try to watch on as big a screen as you can though. The cinematography and scenery deserve it.

    • #42
  13. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    danok1 (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    colleenb (View Comment):

    Charles Mark (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Charles Mark: I can’t think of any reason why Scotland shouldn’t be independent if that’s what the Scottish people want.

    One, they had their vote and lost. Two, it’s not “independence” if your trading Westminster for Brussels. Three, they are bleeding red ink.

    They rely on two things for revenue: North Sea oil (that is most definitely an “unwholesome” carbon fuel) and the Barnett Formula which assures Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland an automatic and higher spending allocation than England. If Westminster adds £1B in spending for England, they have to cut a check to the Scots of £1B + 10.34% x 99.7% or £103M more than what’s spent in England. It was developed by Joel Barnett, the Chief Secretary of the Treasury In 1978 as a temporary fix to the political problem of devolution of power to the regional parliaments. It was so temporary no one’s been able to kill it.

    Your first point is a fair one. There should be clear evidence of majority support (within Scotland ) for independence before any further referendum takes place. Also, the fact that Scotland voted fairly strongly to remain in the EU is a significant change in circumstances since the previous referendum. I’m a firm Eurosceptic and that wouldn’t be my way of thinking but the opposite view is perfectly legitimate.

    Your economic points are entirely valid and may be good reasons why a majority will vote against independence, given another opportunity. Or maybe, like Brexiteers, they will think their economy can take the shock of leaving and return to strength in due course. That’s essentially a matter for debate in any campaign either to have a referendum or to win it.

    PS I am halfway through the Netflix movie “Outlaw King” -about Robert Bruce fighting for Scottish freedom from perfidious Albion- so maybe that is sharpening my inherent Nationalism!

     

    Do you recommend Outlaw King?

    I do. I watched it before. Not sure how accurate it is but a good watch if you don’t mind some blood and guts.

    I had to quit watching for that reason. Too much for me.

    I thought it was good, but I also think it felt too long. Don’t know what I’d cut though.

    Try to watch on as big a screen as you can though. The cinematography and scenery deserve it.

    Nothing will ever be as good as Last of the Mohicans. 

    • #43
  14. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Yeesh, after that bracing opening about prioritizing Brexit, the rest of the speech could have been taken from any lib-Dem playbook. Increase the minimum wage. Increase education funding. Decrease carbon emissions. No parking fees for NHS hospital visits for the poor?? … Ugh. Everything’s a free lunch.

    Reminds me of a headline I saw on NR: Congrats Boris, R.I.P Fiscal Conservatism

    If a nominally conservative party lacks either the courage or the communications skills to sell conservative economics when it can boast of having reduced unemployment to a 44-year-low and when its opponent promises to implement unreconstructed socialism, it bodes ill for those on either side of the Atlantic who wonder whether any party will ever even gesture in the direction of sane fiscal policy again.

    • #44
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.