The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
Forward cast suggests the new uptick in cases should be pretty short lived, with today's figures being weighted more towards earlier days and the later days not showing the same increase.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.
Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense. Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record). Owen Paterson. IDS. The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.
The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.
But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.
No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
An alternative option, certainly, but I was operating on the premise of retention. I'd favour reform, but I wasn't actually 100% opposed to the idea of a 100 seat chamber with 25 from each of the Home Nations. Sure, unrepresentative, but that's hardly an issue it is not dealing with already. But I can see the problems with such a balance.
The problem being that it is unacceptable.
My solution would be 700 (ie 0.001% of the population) chosen at random for one year.
I suppose you could adjust for age, intelligence and criminality.
My proposal is that the Lords should be replaced with the 250 most direct *illegitimate* descendants of Charles II
If we are to be ruled by bastards, let them be *proper* bastards......
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
I see all 3 knockout games are going to be won by the team which won the toss, all chasing. Bit of a farce to award the tournament on a coin toss frankly, no one in their right mind thinks Australia are even in the discussion for best team.
OT once again. I did rather enjoy this interview with the Editor of Private Eye, young Mr Hislop. The first 30 seconds or so are clips from later in the interview so don't get riled about them out of context. I do think he would fit in rather well with the PB mindset.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
OT once again. I did rather enjoy this interview with the Editor of Private Eye, young Mr Hislop. The first 30 seconds or so are clips from later in the interview so don't get riled about them out of context. I do think he would fit in rather well with the PB mindset.
Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.
Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.
Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.
He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
He is a bit of an edge case. He isn't included in most lists of English monarchs, he "enjoyed Mary's titles and styles" and documents were issued in joint names. English law doesn't recognise de jure uxoris. So there is a case for regarding it simply as a courtesy title.
Empress Matilda has a better claim to be acknowledged queen, she was at least the heir and was in charge for a period of about 9 months I think while Stephen was otherwise undisposed.
Yes, I've never been entirely clear why she has not counted, especially since we officially date Charles II from 1649 despite not, in England at least, being recognised or having any power for a long time, and I'd presumed Henry II had probably stated she had officially been Queen (notwithstanding how the civil war had been brought to an end). Even if it was only 10 weeks as ydoethur says, crowned is crowned.
Civil strife and revolution breed these kinds of ambiguities. Charles II's reign was, of course, backdated by Parliament after the Commonwealth failed and the monarchy was restored. Stephen had a coronation; Matilda did not (she was driven out of London before it could take place,) and the compromise eventually made between Stephen and Matilda's heir recognised Stephen's right to the throne.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
STV in multi-member constituencies would do it.
A bugger's muddle of an electoral system.
'Surplus votes'. WTF?
And it takes a week to count the ballots.
surplus votes mean more votes than is required to elect someone.
It's a way of trying to match the no. of seats to the percentage of votes.
It doesn't take a week either. In scotland, it takes 2 or 3 days at the most. This isn't a problem as the sitting PM is still PM until the new government takes over.
What's hard about it?
So which votes are the surplus votes?
The ones that happen to be in the last pile counted or some sort of representative sample?
And how do you figure that out when you've reached the 15th count?
Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.
Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.
Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.
He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
He is a bit of an edge case. He isn't included in most lists of English monarchs, he "enjoyed Mary's titles and styles" and documents were issued in joint names. English law doesn't recognise de jure uxoris. So there is a case for regarding it simply as a courtesy title.
Empress Matilda has a better claim to be acknowledged queen, she was at least the heir and was in charge for a period of about 9 months I think while Stephen was otherwise undisposed.
Ten weeks - declared Queen by the legatine council on 7th April 1141, driven out by the Londoners on 24th June the same year in favour of Queen Matilda de Bolougne.
She didn't control much of England in that time either, including, crucially, Kent. But then, neither did Stephen for most of his reign.
I think it may be a problem with terminology. She was declared Lady of the English. Not sure what she would have been crowned as, regina presumably but I am not sure English already had the work Queen as something to be used for a queen regnant, the original word just means woman, or by extension, wife.
As she was the legitimate heir you could give her from the Battle of Lincoln, when Stephen became a prisoner, to the Rout of Winchester in November. But it's all a bit moot as you point out she didn't control much of the country much of the time.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
STV in multi-member constituencies would do it.
A bugger's muddle of an electoral system.
'Surplus votes'. WTF?
And it takes a week to count the ballots.
surplus votes mean more votes than is required to elect someone.
It's a way of trying to match the no. of seats to the percentage of votes.
It doesn't take a week either. In scotland, it takes 2 or 3 days at the most. This isn't a problem as the sitting PM is still PM until the new government takes over.
What's hard about it?
So which votes are the surplus votes?
The ones that happen to be in the last pile counted or some sort of representative sample?
And how do you figure that out when you've reached the 15th count?
Unhelpfully, of all William's other names only Philip has any appropriate royal pedigree, and even that would cause confusion over numbering given there has been a King Philip of England and Ireland but not Scotland.
Louis would be out of the question and surely he wouldn't go for Arthur.
Philip of Spain was a consort so the numbering issue doesn't arise.
He could also get around the problem by using two names - maybe William Philip, in deference to his late grandfather? - as has occurred commonly in other European monarchies. We have King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands at the moment, of course.
He was joint king, and coinage was issued in his name.
Yebbut Mary died in 1558, so Philip was King for only four years.
He is a bit of an edge case. He isn't included in most lists of English monarchs, he "enjoyed Mary's titles and styles" and documents were issued in joint names. English law doesn't recognise de jure uxoris. So there is a case for regarding it simply as a courtesy title.
Empress Matilda has a better claim to be acknowledged queen, she was at least the heir and was in charge for a period of about 9 months I think while Stephen was otherwise undisposed.
Ten weeks - declared Queen by the legatine council on 7th April 1141, driven out by the Londoners on 24th June the same year in favour of Queen Matilda de Bolougne.
She didn't control much of England in that time either, including, crucially, Kent. But then, neither did Stephen for most of his reign.
I think it may be a problem with terminology. She was declared Lady of the English. Not sure what she would have been crowned as, regina presumably but I am not sure English already had the work Queen as something to be used for a queen regnant, the original word just means woman, or by extension, wife.
As she was the legitimate heir you could give her from the Battle of Lincoln, when Stephen became a prisoner, to the Rout of Winchester in November. But it's all a bit moot as you point out she didn't control much of the country much of the time.
A fairly unsubtle reference to Aethelflaed, Queen Regnant of Mercia from 911-918, who was called 'Lady of the Mercians' although technically at that time there was no title of 'Queen' in the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as in 'wife of the King.'
I think one thing we should remember is that titles in the Middle Ages were a lot more fluid than they are portrayed as now. For example the King of Ireland was technically known as 'Dominus Hiberniae' (Lord of Ireland) until 1542 when Henry VIII specifically declared himself King of Ireland. Likewise, the titles King and Lord of Mann were used interchangeably.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
STV in multi-member constituencies would do it.
A bugger's muddle of an electoral system.
'Surplus votes'. WTF?
And it takes a week to count the ballots.
surplus votes mean more votes than is required to elect someone.
It's a way of trying to match the no. of seats to the percentage of votes.
It doesn't take a week either. In scotland, it takes 2 or 3 days at the most. This isn't a problem as the sitting PM is still PM until the new government takes over.
What's hard about it?
So which votes are the surplus votes?
The ones that happen to be in the last pile counted or some sort of representative sample?
And how do you figure that out when you've reached the 15th count?
Every vote is transferred, with a pro-rata value
I feel Sandy is just NOT trying hard enough to understand it.
OT once again. I did rather enjoy this interview with the Editor of Private Eye, young Mr Hislop. The first 30 seconds or so are clips from later in the interview so don't get riled about them out of context. I do think he would fit in rather well with the PB mindset.
Did they talk about him helping Andrew Wakefield spread his antivax bollocks?
Given that Private Eye admitted they got it wrong over a decade ago at the time the Lancet withdrew the paper whilst other newspapers - notably The Guardian who, via Ben Goldacre had long defended Wakefield's paper - have never apologised nor even really admitted they were wrong, methinks you are just shit stirring. As usual.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
Yes people are odd - so I think it is a bit strange to think it is nonsense that lots of people will cry and feel a lot when it happens.
People cry and leave tributes to people they've never heard of when there's a tragic road accidents or attack, they get upset at a celebrity they like dying, they express genuine feels of loss and sorry for the murder of an MP they'd never heard of, because of what the situation represents to them, and out of sympathy for those who will feel it most closely.
That's just human nature - plenty of people will not care at all, others may mark it as a noteworthy occasion with symnpathy for the family and friends, and others will feel it much more closely, irrespective of whether they logically should. People have always mourned heads of state and other significant figures and genuinely felt emotion at the events.
The idea it is odd for people to react so when they are not a close relative or friend is itself extremely odd, even if one does not share in it. Is that not part of the point of tribes and nations and creeds, that we feel something, even a little, for people we may never have even met based on some shared connection, in this case as nominal ruler.
I won't judge anyone who does not feel much emotion at the occasion - as a child I remember thinking the Di stuff was over the top - but what it isn't is odd for people to feel it.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
Indeed.
And of course almost everyone lives in a multi-member ward for their council, excepting very rural wards.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
You have too much faith in our politicians. It would just be an excuse for buck passing.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
Indeed.
And of course almost everyone lives in a multi-member ward for their council, excepting very rural wards.
Depends on the council - certainly the LGBCE are very keen on multi member wards as it makes drawing them easier, but there are councils which themselves may be very rural, but where all the Divisions including the urban areas are single member.
OT once again. I did rather enjoy this interview with the Editor of Private Eye, young Mr Hislop. The first 30 seconds or so are clips from later in the interview so don't get riled about them out of context. I do think he would fit in rather well with the PB mindset.
Did they talk about him helping Andrew Wakefield spread his antivax bollocks?
Given that Private Eye admitted they got it wrong over a decade ago at the time the Lancet withdrew the paper whilst other newspapers - notably The Guardian who, via Ben Goldacre had long defended Wakefield's paper - have never apologised nor even really admitted they were wrong, methinks you are just shit stirring. As usual.
Goldacre defended it? Really? In his book he's absolutely scathing about the media outlets that used it to drum up hysteria.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
Indeed.
And of course almost everyone lives in a multi-member ward for their council, excepting very rural wards.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
As far as being sad when people you don't actually know die, I think its called Empathy.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
Indeed.
And of course almost everyone lives in a multi-member ward for their council, excepting very rural wards.
Depends on the council - certainly the LGBCE are very keen on multi member wards as it makes drawing them easier, but there are councils which themselves may be very rural, but where all the Divisions including the urban areas are single member.
Then there is the one with 65 single member wards. And one 2 member ward.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
The dreaming thing is independent of the crying thing (which I am certainly not going to do). She is a Jungian Archetype, and anyone who has never dreamed about her is divorced from the collective unconscious and should refer themselves to an analyst without delay.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
Indeed.
And of course almost everyone lives in a multi-member ward for their council, excepting very rural wards.
Depends on the council - certainly the LGBCE are very keen on multi member wards as it makes drawing them easier, but there are councils which themselves may be very rural, but where all the Divisions including the urban areas are single member.
Then there is the one with 65 single member wards. And one 2 member ward.
Don't get me started. I get it is easier for them, but I swear there is one with a mix of 3 member, 2 member and single member wards.
How Buckingshamshire managed to persuade them to create a 147 council (they don't have an official rule to seek to reduce councils when they review them, but it is apparent in their process that they generally expect it, and while it is a new council, there are very few others above 100 now, possibly just 1-2) and with 49 wards each of them with 3 members, i do not know.
Edit:
Amusingly, I see from Buckingshire's election results that the LDs got 15 seats out of 147, and that 13 of those are all from the same town.
OT once again. I did rather enjoy this interview with the Editor of Private Eye, young Mr Hislop. The first 30 seconds or so are clips from later in the interview so don't get riled about them out of context. I do think he would fit in rather well with the PB mindset.
Did they talk about him helping Andrew Wakefield spread his antivax bollocks?
Given that Private Eye admitted they got it wrong over a decade ago at the time the Lancet withdrew the paper whilst other newspapers - notably The Guardian who, via Ben Goldacre had long defended Wakefield's paper - have never apologised nor even really admitted they were wrong, methinks you are just shit stirring. As usual.
Goldacre defended it? Really? In his book he's absolutely scathing about the media outlets that used it to drum up hysteria.
Indeed he is very good at rewriting history. In 2005, even as the attacks were coming out from the Sunday Times, he wrote:
"The paper always was and still remains a perfectly good small case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more than that, by media that are incapable of interpreting and reporting scientific data."
And in 2008 he wrote:
"Journalists have convinced themselves that his £435,643 fee from legal aid proves that his research was flawed. I will now defend the heretic Dr Andrew Wakefield. The media are fingering the wrong man, and they know who should really take the blame: in MMR, journalists and editors have constructed their greatest hoax to date."
And yet reading what he wrote after 2010 and particularly his attacks on other newspapers you would never get an inkling of this.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
Indeed.
And of course almost everyone lives in a multi-member ward for their council, excepting very rural wards.
Depends on the council - certainly the LGBCE are very keen on multi member wards as it makes drawing them easier, but there are councils which themselves may be very rural, but where all the Divisions including the urban areas are single member.
Then there is the one with 65 single member wards. And one 2 member ward.
Don't get me started. I get it is easier for them, but I swear there is one with a mix of 3 member, 2 member and single member wards.
How Buckingshamshire managed to persuade them to create a 147 council (they don't have an official rule to seek to reduce councils when they review them, but it is apparent in their process that they generally expect it, and while it is a new council, there are very few others above 100 now, possibly just 1-2) and with 49 wards each of them with 3 members, i do not know.
As some wag downthread asked “have they added a yellow stripe?”:
The French Elysée have confirmed that the country’s flag has quietly been changed by President Macron. The blue is now a dark shade of navy, to be identical to the Tricolore of 1793.
Liverpool Women's Hospital: Counter-terror police lead investigation into taxi explosion that kills one
The vehicle exploded outside the hospital at 11am on Sunday morning. Witnesses reported hearing a loud bang before seeing a taxi on fire in the car park.
Not that it is great to speculate but I would not be surprised if the death was the driver who turned out to be an ex-armed forces taxi driver suffering from PTSD and / or had some association with the hospital (e.g. their child born there).
Not sure if I’ve ever dreamed of the queen. I may have but forgotten.
The Pet Shop Boys had a good single called Dreaming of the Queen. The odd lyrics and eerie music perfectly captured how I imagine most queen dreams would be.
Liverpool Women's Hospital: Counter-terror police lead investigation into taxi explosion that kills one
The vehicle exploded outside the hospital at 11am on Sunday morning. Witnesses reported hearing a loud bang before seeing a taxi on fire in the car park.
Not that it is great to speculate but I would not be surprised if the death was the driver who turned out to be an ex-armed forces taxi driver suffering from PTSD and / or had some association with the hospital (e.g. their child born there).
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People differ, shrug - I doubt if it's 90%, but a third sounds quite possible. I'll be sorry when she dies, as someone decent who handled a tricky job well. I wouldn't expect to cry or dream or her, but I can see how some might - hell, most of us have shed tears over fictional movies.
OT once again. I did rather enjoy this interview with the Editor of Private Eye, young Mr Hislop. The first 30 seconds or so are clips from later in the interview so don't get riled about them out of context. I do think he would fit in rather well with the PB mindset.
Did they talk about him helping Andrew Wakefield spread his antivax bollocks?
No (at least not at the point I've gotten to), but he does bring up an argument which I've never really understood, about the discussion around toxic and vicious debate that arose in the wake of Sir David Amess's death, and he rather smirkingly dismissed it as 'not the place' for the true point that the killer in that instance does not appear to have been involved in or interested in debate of any kind.
I've never understood it because I don't see why there needed to be a one to one connection, and don't see what the problem is in a tragedy leading people to reflect upon a separate issue of political discourse in general. At the time it struck me as some commentators thinking to prove themselves clever and contrarian insuggesting people were missing the point of the tragedy, when I don't see why several debates cannot happen at once, and even those not directly connected can affect how people perceive the other.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
As far as being sad when people you don't actually know die, I think its called Empathy.
I was unimpressed when Diana died. As a friend said at the time, I was more upset when Freddie Mercury died. And if you will get into a car with a drugged-up and drunk driver..
However the Queen has been a constant in my life and I have always been impressed by her sense of duty, and her faith - although I don't share it myself. And I would rather owe allegiance to a person than a country, which is a legal fiction created by the Peace of Westphalia. So I will be a little sad.
As some wag downthread asked “have they added a yellow stripe?”:
The French Elysée have confirmed that the country’s flag has quietly been changed by President Macron. The blue is now a dark shade of navy, to be identical to the Tricolore of 1793.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
As some wag downthread asked “have they added a yellow stripe?”:
The French Elysée have confirmed that the country’s flag has quietly been changed by President Macron. The blue is now a dark shade of navy, to be identical to the Tricolore of 1793.
There is rather a good passage on that in a C S Forester book, The Captain From Connecticut, set in 1814, where a young American naval captain indignantly asks why a ship hoisted a flag of truce and then fired on him.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
As far as being sad when people you don't actually know die, I think its called Empathy.
I was unimpressed when Diana died. As a friend said at the time, I was more upset when Freddie Mercury died. And if you will get into a car with a drugged-up and drunk driver..
However the Queen has been a constant in my life and I have always been impressed by her sense of duty, and her faith - although I don't share it myself. And I would rather owe allegiance to a person than a country, which is a legal fiction created by the Peace of Westphalia. So I will be a little sad.
Bollocks. When Horace wrote "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" he did not have the principle of Westphalian sovereignty in mind.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
As I’ve posted upthread, I clearly recall a time before Queen Elizabeth II, and I recall the irritation that came from Scotland when she was so designated. I suggest that if her heir has a ‘questionable’ regal number that could push Indy numbers over 50%.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Yes, for anyone who can recall events that far back the Queen's passing will be monumental, even if they don't get emosh, it will be a huge evolution, a great rupture
It will also be a stark reminder of human mortality (one reason why the deaths of famous people touch us, even if we have not met them)
Spring and Fall
BY GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS
to a young child
Margaret, are you grieving Over Goldengrove unleaving? Leaves, like the things of man, you With your fresh thoughts care for, can you? Ah! as the heart grows older It will come to such sights colder By and by, nor spare a sigh Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie; And yet you will weep and know why. Now no matter, child, the name: Sorrow’s springs are the same. Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed What heart heard of, ghost guessed: It is the blight man was born for, It is Margaret you mourn for
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Yes, for anyone who can recall events that far back the Queen's passing will be monumental, even if they don't get emosh, it will be a huge evolution, a great rupture
It will also be a stark reminder of human mortality (one reason why the deaths of famous people touch us, even if we have not met them)
Spring and Fall
BY GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS
to a young child
Margaret, are you grieving Over Goldengrove unleaving? Leaves, like the things of man, you With your fresh thoughts care for, can you? Ah! as the heart grows older It will come to such sights colder By and by, nor spare a sigh Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie; And yet you will weep and know why. Now no matter, child, the name: Sorrow’s springs are the same. Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed What heart heard of, ghost guessed: It is the blight man was born for, It is Margaret you mourn for
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
As I’ve posted upthread, I clearly recall a time before Queen Elizabeth II, and I recall the irritation that came from Scotland when she was so designated. I suggest that if her heir has a ‘questionable’ regal number that could push Indy numbers over 50%.
Rubbish, it did not stop most Scots voting to stay in the UK in 2014 and if you are that bothered about it you will likely be a Nationalist anyway. In any case Charles 1st was Charles 1st of England and Scotland so obviously when Charles IIIrd becomes King that title will apply to both nations
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords. They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes; They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies. And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
People love to blame faceless bureaucrats because they are, well, faceless. It's just easier. But it is not the case they are the elite.
Bureaucrats only have such authority or responsibility invested in them by representatives. For everyday people the bureaucrats are in charge, but MPs and Lords have the capability to set the rules on their own behaviour - they divested it to others because they'd proven they could not be trusted with it themselves. And they just reproved it. If they don't want to do training etc they can hold firm on that, I'd agree they should not feel forced to do it, but if they choose to give in to it that's their choice.
I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.
Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense. Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record). Owen Paterson. IDS. The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.
The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.
But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.
No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
You seem to have forgotten the Vatican City, whose legislature is made up of Cardinals appointed by the Pope.
The Church of England is also the state church of England and so it should still have some representatives in the Lords as long as it remains an appointed chamber
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
As I’ve posted upthread, I clearly recall a time before Queen Elizabeth II, and I recall the irritation that came from Scotland when she was so designated. I suggest that if her heir has a ‘questionable’ regal number that could push Indy numbers over 50%.
Edit I was trying to be too clever. Momentarily forgot that name Charles doesn't have that problem.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
As I’ve posted upthread, I clearly recall a time before Queen Elizabeth II, and I recall the irritation that came from Scotland when she was so designated. I suggest that if her heir has a ‘questionable’ regal number that could push Indy numbers over 50%.
It would be an impressively dumb reason to push support over 50% when there are plenty of good reasons that have swayed so many.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
I was in the Cubs at the time, but also a choirboy. We learned Handel's anthem Zadok the Priest.
The problem is that in order to tackle sleaze at the root, we need to institute an electoral system that makes MPs accountable for their actions. FPTP creates safe seats for the parties and therefore for the individual MPs, but if one could vote for ones party without voting for a tainted MP who happens to be wearing the right colour rosette, then MPs would be forced to account for their personal conduct in a way that does not happen at the moment. It is very notable that the MPs with second jobs and those most involved in the current bruhaha are largely in "safe seats". It is this lack of accountability that is the root of the problem. Safe seats are as corrupt a part of FPTP as rotten boroughs were before the Great Reform act of 1832 and as subsequently ammended.
So reform must begin with a more open electoral system. If greater competition benefits the economy, why would it not be a good thing in politics? In the House of Commons we have the ultimate closed shop with the most extreme Spanish practices and which delivers huge "majorities" often regardless of how the voters actually vote. Unless this is changed then the system will continue to deliver sub par MPs and these MPs neither offer accountability for themselves nor can they themselves hold Whitehall or Downing St to account. The fact that neither the Monarchy not the House of Lords has democratic accountability (which is a deliberate feature, not a bug) means that a PM with a solid majority has untramelled power to do what they like. Again, an open electoral system would mean that Downing St would have to account for itself.
Any constitutional or political reform without reform to the voting system is a pointless distraction.
The trouble is that most of the alternative systems proposed would not make MPs more beholden to the public but instead more beholden to their parties. There are exceptions of course but they don't seem to be the ones most people in favour of electoral reform are campaigning for.
So choose the better system! NO lists, No ATV, especially since it makes it harder to elect independents, but STV does answer most of those questions, so choose that.
Yep I could just about go for STV although I don't like the multi-member idea. It allows MPs to pass the buck too easily. I was in favour of AV as it seemed the most reasonable alternative to FPTP.
I would have thought having 3 or 4 MPs available in a city to choose from it would help electors with their problems. In fact the MPs could divide up the numbers based on their particular expertise, experience or political leanings.
And they can compete with each other?
why not?
We judge MPs on various criteria now. What's wrong with serving the electors? Possibly able to publish it each election time?
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
As I’ve posted upthread, I clearly recall a time before Queen Elizabeth II, and I recall the irritation that came from Scotland when she was so designated. I suggest that if her heir has a ‘questionable’ regal number that could push Indy numbers over 50%.
Rubbish, it did not stop most Scots voting to stay in the UK in 2014 and if you are that bothered about it you will likely be a Nationalist anyway. In any case Charles 1st was Charles 1st of England and Scotland so obviously when Charles IIIrd becomes King that title will apply to both nations
You were not even a gleam in your Grandads eye in 1953. I was at secondary school and getting interested in politics, and there was a good deal of Scots discontent.
However I do agree that, apart from a few Jacobites, Charles III will be fine.
People love to blame faceless bureaucrats because they are, well, faceless. It's just easier. But it is not the case they are the elite.
Bureaucrats only have such authority or responsibility invested in them by representatives. For everyday people the bureaucrats are in charge, but MPs and Lords have the capability to set the rules on their own behaviour - they divested it to others because they'd proven they could not be trusted with it themselves. And they just reproved it. If they don't want to do training etc they can hold firm on that, I'd agree they should not feel forced to do it, but if they choose to give in to it that's their choice.
You haven't encountered those who believe themselves to be "in charge"?
My favourite was the couple who ran a charity. That lobbied various governments for funding, so that they could lobby various governments for funding. No actual third worlders were bothered in this cycle. They (the.... leaders of the charity) had a charming Georgian house with an In/Out gravel drive. Complete with two Range Rovers, with his'n'hers vanity plates..... All very symmetrical.....
They were so very clear that they were part of the great and the good.
I think that I would be in the 11%. I really don't think that there is very much corruption in UK politics at all. This does not mean that we don't need to be wary of it developing. There have been a range of incidents in recent times that frankly stink.
Jenner and the planning permission/tax/dinner nonsense. Various Covid contracts to companies with no obvious expertise or resources (I would cut a lot more slack for contracts with companies with some sort of track record). Owen Paterson. IDS. The payments for doing up Number 10 to Carrie's satisfaction and the gifts of various holidays etc.
The attempt to interrupt the process (which in fairness worked) for Paterson was probably the most serious error of the Boris Premiership to date. Beyond stupid both from a public perception point of view and because it disclosed a ridiculously cavalier attitude to standards.
But in general the rule of law is strong in this country; our civil service and judiciary are independent and impartial (Scotland is a bit of a worry here in both respects) and those who do wrong such as Paterson are both found out and punished. We need to be alert to keep it that way and if that means the odd attack of the vapours about MPs using their office for something as inoffensive as a video call so be it. Better that than the other routes open to us.
Selling peerages might place higher, if that is what happened. On Boris's holidays and wallpapergate, I think the problem is not that these things are necessarily corrupt in themselves but because (again!) they reinforce the impression of one rule for them. And not just who paid; even the act of taking exotic holidays while the rest of us are counting mask-wearers at the supermarket can rankle. It is of a piece with the aborted rescue of Paterson.
Personally, I am pretty relaxed about the selling of peerages. If we are going to have something as ridiculous and archaic as the House of Lords where people get to dress up in bits of dead animal and give themselves absurd titles it might as well fund our party political system. At least that way we get something out of the farce.
Except they don't just get to dress up and give themselves absurd titles - they have legislative authority. Yes, it can be overruled, but that is rare, and though ping pong may strip out plenty of what the Lords want, other stuff does happen because of them. That's archaic, but it isn't a farce when actual authority is still involved, even if limited.
No MPs in the Lords until 10 years after they have sat, and no one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party - if their good works along would see them offered a place, prove it.
Or we can just get rid of it and leave Iran alone in having religious representatives in their legislature as of right.
You seem to have forgotten the Vatican City, whose legislature is made up of Cardinals appointed by the Pope.
I think when comparing countries it is pretty reasonable not to think about Vatican City, which might well technically count, but is not exactly relevant for comparitive purposes for country statistics and much else. Administratively a comparison with an elective theocracy of circa 500 residents, less than a mid sized housing estate, is not going to be super useful.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
We had a Victorian corner semi with very large rooms and the only tv in the neighbourhood, so it was open house all day with everyone packed into the lounge peering at the black and white tv with the still remaining blackout curtains firmly closed
It is a day I will always remember for the number of times my grandmother was up and down each time the national anthem was played and the gallons of tea served
The closest comparison to the Queen Dying - in other countries - was the death of King Bumibhol in Thailand in 2016, after a 66 year long reign
He was revered, even adored. Also respected. He saw the country through near civil war and coups aplenty, and was always dignified in a quiet, shy way. Flawless in execution of the job. The similarities with QE2 are quite striking.
Thais wore black for about a year. Of course we won't do that but there will be real grief.
Luckily for us we have the dutiful if slightly dreary Charles to take over. He will do OK. The Thais got their version of Prince Andrew. Actually even worse than Andrew
"Thailand threatens to prosecute Facebook for running a video of the country's heavily tattooed king walking through a shopping mall in a tiny yellow crop-top"
I've some work links to Oman. Sultan Qaboos (monarch for 50 years) died in Jan 2020, there was - effectively - a week of national mourning. Literally nowt got done.
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords, Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords. They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes; They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies. And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs, Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
GKC was a twat. It's probably safer to be tyrannised by bureaucrats rather than angry toffs with swords, and you don't have to know too much of his oeuvre to understand that "alien" almost certainly means "Jewish."
People love to blame faceless bureaucrats because they are, well, faceless. It's just easier. But it is not the case they are the elite.
Bureaucrats only have such authority or responsibility invested in them by representatives. For everyday people the bureaucrats are in charge, but MPs and Lords have the capability to set the rules on their own behaviour - they divested it to others because they'd proven they could not be trusted with it themselves. And they just reproved it. If they don't want to do training etc they can hold firm on that, I'd agree they should not feel forced to do it, but if they choose to give in to it that's their choice.
That piece seems to be a crude hatchet job on Kathryn Stone and the other 'functionaries' who dare to get themselves into a position where they can pass judgement upon their betters. A singularly nasty piece of work.
Oh dear, I just saw Catherine at the Cenotaph. And then Charles....
A week or two?
Please God no!
I've got a holiday booked in London for the end of the month.
It is vulgar and distasteful to speculate, but let's face it we are going to speculate. Charles had the same face, today, that he wore when he went to visit the DoE a few days before the old man conked out. I suspect we are very close (I hope I am wrong, ofc, not just for her sake but because it is going to be an emotional hernia for the country)
So few of us can remember what it is like when a monarch passes.
eg Do we all immediately switch to "God Save the King"? Or do we wait until Chuck is crowned, or what?
Chas becomes King the second her majesty passes.
It is automatic.
The crowning bit is largely irrelevant. Although certain oaths need to be said in order to cement it regarding upholding church of england iirc.
So, theoretically, the time of the England South Africa match next weekend, the players could all be belting out "God Save the King"
The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King
I kind of like the instant automaticity of it. But I am a monarchist
IIRC from the London Bridge plans that all major sporting events get postponed up until after the funeral.
The Rozzers will be needed elsewhere.
Presumably the funeral plans are all fairly cemented in place. Should be some good music
That's a great article, if a bit too fixated on national decline
This is an insightful passage
"In 1972, the writer Brian Masters estimated that around a third of us have dreamed about the Queen – she stands for authority and our mothers. People who are not expecting to cry will cry."
Reckon that's absolutely bang on. The Queen is Mummy. She has always been there, a fixed point in the British heavens, even hardened Republicans will be shaken, perhaps to the point of tears
A third? Bloody hell, even i have dreamed about the Queen. I'd genuinely put it at the mid 90 %s for people born here.
Yes, I've dreamed of her too. She's on the coins and stamps, she is everywhere, she is part of the national DNA, she is a constellation of meaning, emotion, memory.
A third is a vast underestimate for British people. But Masters was writing in 1972, and the Queen has grown mightily in stature and significance in the 50 years (!!) since then
I have French friends that will cry when she dies
What a load of nonsense. Of course I won't cry when the queen dies. This is lady di stuff. If you don't know her and she isn't a close relative or close friend why would you cry? People should get a grip. And as for dreaming of the queen, well I have had some weird dreams, but the queen has never been in any of them. People are odd.
People are odd. A genius insight. In this case you are the odd one
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Like many others, we first acquired a tv for her coronation. A royal spectacular, even on a 14" black and white screen, was how the tv era began for my cohort.
Scouts from within the London travel-to-work area spent Coronation day selling programmes along the route. My friends and I were in Regent Street.
I was in the Cubs at the time, but also a choirboy. We learned Handel's anthem Zadok the Priest.
When the day comes, the whole world will ask "why are they playing the Champions League anthem?"
Comments
I'm starting to think anything beneath250 would have been insufficient.
Forward cast suggests the new uptick in cases should be pretty short lived, with today's figures being weighted more towards earlier days and the later days not showing the same increase.
If we are to be ruled by bastards, let them be *proper* bastards......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OylUquvFEz0
The ones that happen to be in the last pile counted or some sort of representative sample?
And how do you figure that out when you've reached the 15th count?
As she was the legitimate heir you could give her from the Battle of Lincoln, when Stephen became a prisoner, to the Rout of Winchester in November. But it's all a bit moot as you point out she didn't control much of the country much of the time.
Socialist Republican credentials untarnished!
That would have been hilarious, the day of the vote, and the day after...
I think one thing we should remember is that titles in the Middle Ages were a lot more fluid than they are portrayed as now. For example the King of Ireland was technically known as 'Dominus Hiberniae' (Lord of Ireland) until 1542 when Henry VIII specifically declared himself King of Ireland. Likewise, the titles King and Lord of Mann were used interchangeably.
People cry and leave tributes to people they've never heard of when there's a tragic road accidents or attack, they get upset at a celebrity they like dying, they express genuine feels of loss and sorry for the murder of an MP they'd never heard of, because of what the situation represents to them, and out of sympathy for those who will feel it most closely.
That's just human nature - plenty of people will not care at all, others may mark it as a noteworthy occasion with symnpathy for the family and friends, and others will feel it much more closely, irrespective of whether they logically should. People have always mourned heads of state and other significant figures and genuinely felt emotion at the events.
The idea it is odd for people to react so when they are not a close relative or friend is itself extremely odd, even if one does not share in it. Is that not part of the point of tribes and nations and creeds, that we feel something, even a little, for people we may never have even met based on some shared connection, in this case as nominal ruler.
I won't judge anyone who does not feel much emotion at the occasion - as a child I remember thinking the Di stuff was over the top - but what it isn't is odd for people to feel it.
And of course almost everyone lives in a multi-member ward for their council, excepting very rural wards.
I beg to differ.
Sadly it isn't the PM.
How Buckingshamshire managed to persuade them to create a 147 council (they don't have an official rule to seek to reduce councils when they review them, but it is apparent in their process that they generally expect it, and while it is a new council, there are very few others above 100 now, possibly just 1-2) and with 49 wards each of them with 3 members, i do not know.
Edit:
Amusingly, I see from Buckingshire's election results that the LDs got 15 seats out of 147, and that 13 of those are all from the same town.
"The paper always was and still remains a perfectly good small case series report, but it was systematically misrepresented as being more than that, by media that are incapable of interpreting and reporting scientific data."
And in 2008 he wrote:
"Journalists have convinced themselves that his £435,643 fee from legal aid proves that his research was flawed. I will now defend the heretic Dr Andrew Wakefield. The media are fingering the wrong man, and they know who should really take the blame: in MMR, journalists and editors have constructed their greatest hoax to date."
And yet reading what he wrote after 2010 and particularly his attacks on other newspapers you would never get an inkling of this.
Then its easier to go from phasing down to phased out.
The French Elysée have confirmed that the country’s flag has quietly been changed by President Macron. The blue is now a dark shade of navy, to be identical to the Tricolore of 1793.
https://twitter.com/ned_donovan/status/1459877660264439809?s=21
The Pet Shop Boys had a good single called Dreaming of the Queen. The odd lyrics and eerie music perfectly captured how I imagine most queen dreams would be.
https://www.petshopboys.co.uk/lyrics/dreaming-of-the-queen
I expect she will not be the only one
I've never understood it because I don't see why there needed to be a one to one connection, and don't see what the problem is in a tragedy leading people to reflect upon a separate issue of political discourse in general. At the time it struck me as some commentators thinking to prove themselves clever and contrarian insuggesting people were missing the point of the tragedy, when I don't see why several debates cannot happen at once, and even those not directly connected can affect how people perceive the other.
However the Queen has been a constant in my life and I have always been impressed by her sense of duty, and her faith - although I don't share it myself. And I would rather owe allegiance to a person than a country, which is a legal fiction created by the Peace of Westphalia. So I will be a little sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SKjnnejx6s
This is not Princess Di. This is the Queen. Most people will be a little sad, and maybe get a bit teary at points. Some people will be REALLY sad
I expect this is especially true for anyone over 40, who has only ever known the Queen as the head of state, a fixed lodestone, but who is also old enough to have memories of many Royal occasions from the Silver Jubilee to Di's funeral to the Cambridge and Sussex weddings
Yes I got here by train and electric vehicle
Deflated journalist
It will also be a stark reminder of human mortality (one reason why the deaths of famous people touch us, even if we have not met them)
Spring and Fall
BY GERARD MANLEY HOPKINS
to a young child
Margaret, are you grieving
Over Goldengrove unleaving?
Leaves, like the things of man, you
With your fresh thoughts care for, can you?
Ah! as the heart grows older
It will come to such sights colder
By and by, nor spare a sigh
Though worlds of wanwood leafmeal lie;
And yet you will weep and know why.
Now no matter, child, the name:
Sorrow’s springs are the same.
Nor mouth had, no nor mind, expressed
What heart heard of, ghost guessed:
It is the blight man was born for,
It is Margaret you mourn for
"MPs aren’t the elite – faceless bureaucrats are"Douglas Murray
"Douglas Murray"
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mps-arent-the-elite--faceless-bureaucrats-are
I stand to be corrected if I am wrong
They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords,
Lords without anger or honour, who dare not carry their swords.
They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes;
They look at our labour and laughter as a tired man looks at flies.
And the load of their loveless pity is worse than the ancient wrongs,
Their doors are shut in the evening; and they know no songs.
Bureaucrats only have such authority or responsibility invested in them by representatives. For everyday people the bureaucrats are in charge, but MPs and Lords have the capability to set the rules on their own behaviour - they divested it to others because they'd proven they could not be trusted with it themselves. And they just reproved it. If they don't want to do training etc they can hold firm on that, I'd agree they should not feel forced to do it, but if they choose to give in to it that's their choice.
The Church of England is also the state church of England and so it should still have some representatives in the Lords as long as it remains an appointed chamber
Obvious to pit very early but they missed, then obvious to go long. Usual muddled crap from them.
We judge MPs on various criteria now. What's wrong with serving the electors? Possibly able to publish it each election time?
However I do agree that, apart from a few Jacobites, Charles III will be fine.
My favourite was the couple who ran a charity. That lobbied various governments for funding, so that they could lobby various governments for funding. No actual third worlders were bothered in this cycle. They (the.... leaders of the charity) had a charming Georgian house with an In/Out gravel drive. Complete with two Range Rovers, with his'n'hers vanity plates..... All very symmetrical.....
They were so very clear that they were part of the great and the good.
It is a day I will always remember for the number of times my grandmother was up and down each time the national anthem was played and the gallons of tea served
Just standard thuggish driving from him. Has gone on too long.