Spying an opportunity for some publicity, he’s supporting a new oath of allegiance – to an MP’s constituents rather than to the Queen. No-one could argue with that, of course, and if they did they would be accused of putting monarch before their own constituents.
But I’ll argue against it anyway.
As far as I know (and if readers can help out with additional information, that would be useful), it’s pretty much the norm for members of national legislatures to swear some kind of oath to the nation, be that in the form of the constitution, the people, the head of state or the monarch.
Does St Norman really believe there’s any kind of contradiction in swearing loyalty to the Queen and serving your constituents? If he does, why has he made the oath at all in the past? I certainly wouldn’t if I thought for one second it would compromise my commitment to the people who elected me.
This campaign is perfect, though: it’s meaningless, it’s happening during the silly season and therefore likely to be picked up by the media (and blogs), and it promotes change for its own sake – not change to improve anything, just change. And that must be good, surely…?