On statues, surely the answer is that Yes they can be taken down, but No it should not be done at the whim of a mob. Get the necessary votes and permissions: fine. They failed to do that with Colston
The jury’s verdict was - to me - perverse and wrong, but I support the right of juries to make up their own minds and so, fair enough
The government should, however, appeal the decision if that is legally do-able
You cannot appeal a not guilty jury verdict. However the AG has asked judges to clarify the law going forward
Yes, my assumption was that appealing it was impossible? - but the AG’s tweets implied that it was
You are correct about Churchill. The danger now is that others will get all excited and go for juicier targets - like Winston - and then it will REALLY kick off
I don't think this case sets any firm precedent let alone one that would protect somebody toppling Winnie. Colston in Bristol was a very particular situation. The way I look at it is that Not Guilty was the technical verdict but Justifiable Homocide was in effect found. That's a rare occurrence. It needs extremely strong mitigating circumstances. They were judged to be so here.
I think the chances of Churchill being hauled down were zero before this verdict and zero afterwards. Fears of some kind of iconoclastic holocaust exist only in the minds of reactionaries. Whatever you might think of Churchill's role in the Bengal famine, gassing the Kurds, Galipoli, turning the army on the British working class or indeed his general racism and hatred of organised labour, the fact is that he led the country to victory in WW2 after facing down appeasement in his own party and for that reason his statue will stay up indefinitely.
Yes, it's nonsense. What's under sustained attack atm aren't our traditional values (however defined), it's integrity in our public life.
Yes, it IS nonsense - that the Colston case means no legal risk for damaging Winnie.
How does this Beeb story say otherwise?
I can't quite believe I am having to explain this, but the average person who might want to deface/bring down/otherwise attack a statue (of Winston Churchill, or anyone, really) may not have understood that the verdict yesterday has not set a precedent they could rely on, legally.
Edit: to clarify, the point of the BBC story is to evidence that many on your side of the political divide would quite like to have a bash at various other statues, and, because one group got let off for doing so, it is now more likely that others will be encouraged to follow suit.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
Point of order: it was Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter who married Shelley. I've never seen the statue because I avoid North London on a point of principle but I have read the Vindication of the Rights of Women (or at least I've read bits of it, it's rather repetitive).
I'm not sure whether to flag this or not but one point to say when it comes to the fight for the women's vote pre-WW1 is the question of whether it was meant for all women or just those who were "respectable" enough to be able to vote. Pre-1918, the UK electoral franchise was actually the most restrictive of the major European countries / colonies when it came to the male vote - one third to 40% of men didn't have the right to vote and the franchise was underpinned by the idea that you had to be "respectable" enough usually by owning property.
Was it Lloyd George who said "This is not a campaign for votes for women. But for votes for ladies"?
I think so. It was a complicated issue and the suffragettes were split themselves. During the war, some apparently opposed women's suffrage because it would mean they would get the vote but poorer men wouldn't. It also wasn't only wealth that was an issue but if you were married (property of husband therefore cannot vote) vs unmarried (could vote). In 1910, the Liberals blocked a Bill to allow unmarried women to vote which kicked the whole round of violence.
I think you see some of this class split amongst the voices today. To me The Fawcett Society and the likes of Stella Creasy are the epitome of middle class feminism, focusing on issues that mainly benefit well-off, educated women - number of women on Boards / as MPs, even the whole bringing the baby into the Commons - basked in a message that is the feminist version of trickle-down economics aka "well, if we get women on the Boards, all women will eventually benefit". Not sure that is the priority of poorer women.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what is becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that. However I doubt full rejoin will ever get to 60% or even to 50%
'as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what is becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate' - you say that like it's a bad thing...
Our economic policy would be decided by Berlin and Frankfurt, our foreign policy would be decided by Paris and our most important Parliament would be in Brussels.
Much as it increasingly already is for EU member States who are also in the Eurozone
Ooooh you silver tongued devil. You’re making me weak at the knees. If only…
As it worked so well for Greece
1) we are not Greece, 2) it has worked quite well for them longer term.
It led to huge austerity which led to mass unemployment in Greece and huge cuts to their public services which made 2010 to 2015 under our coalition look very mild in comparison.
Germany runs the Eurozone effectively and France runs EU foreign policy, we would not get a look in. Had staying in the EU required joining the Euro I would have voted Leave
The Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy, who has been accused of a series of serious sex offences against young women, has been freed on bail.
Mendy, who was held at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool before recently being transferred to HMP Manchester, was granted bail by Judge Patrick Thompson at a private hearing at Chester crown court, with press excluded from the courtroom.
Health Sec Sajid Javid tells pool that you are 90 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with Omicron than Delta if you have been boosted, according to latest data he has
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
We had this discussion last night. I don't have strong feelings about getting rid of the monarchy, but if we did why do we have this big thing about what to replace it with. It is not as if the Queen actually runs the country currently. We have an executive that does that and they could carry on doing it.
The armed forces swear loyalty to the Queen not PM. The monarch is head of the armed forces as well as Head of State but the PM is effectively Head of Government in the UK.
A Head of State who is also Head of Government and head of the armed forces too has too much power
I disagree. In my opinion (although I appreciate not yours) the Queen is powerless. I might not like it but Boris is in charge. They might swear loyalty to the Queen, but they do as Boris says, not as the Queen says.
No, if Boris tried to launch a military coup or impose a dictatorship under him the armed forces would refuse as they swear loyalty to the Queen not the PM
And if the Queen told the military to invade Parliament they wouldn't either?
So as you see that has nothing whatsoever to do with whom the military to swear loyalty to but all to do with the military (hopefully) not carrying out an unreasonable order.
Vandalising statues is barbaric, and a jury endorsing mob rule is not an edifying spectacle.
Afternoon, Mr Dancer!
Completely coincidentally I have bought de Bedoyere's new history of the Roman Army, which has by a train of thought reminded me of the classical world more generally, and its little quirk. Some statues of Aphrodite were supposed to be so erotic in Ancient Greece that some of their devotees couldn't restrain their excitement. No idea if that is true, but it certainly adds a new dimension to statue-bothering.
Aphrodite Kallipygos. Venus of the beautiful buttocks
Maajid begging now he's got himself thrown out of his job..
Maajid أبو عمّار @MaajidNawaz 34m i refuse to go quietly into the night
please become a paid subscriber to my substack newsletter
i’ll post there soon but forgive the basic set up for now, I have a wife & child to support and my show was our family’s only source of income:
Has he been booted from LBC?
Since Trump he has gone proper bonkers. I remember the days when he appeared to be a voice of reason, a Lib Dem that I think if PB had their own MP they could vote on he would win quite easily.
Edit:-
LBC has released a statement this afternoon confirming that presenter Maajid Nawaz is leaving the station with “immediate effect”:
“Maajid Nawaz’s contract with LBC is up very shortly and following discussions with him, Maajid will no longer present a show on LBC with immediate effect. We thank Maajid for the contribution he has made to LBC and wish him well.”
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
99% of the global population have no idea who the President of Germany or Ireland are but 99% have heard of Queen Elizabeth II. Our constitutional monarchy is a great advert for global Britain while also not being the elected imperial presidencies of the US or France
Allow me to remind you of the Galapagos Islands. Famous for its relics and living fossils. Tourists love giant tortoises and marine lizards.
Maajid begging now he's got himself thrown out of his job..
Maajid أبو عمّار @MaajidNawaz 34m i refuse to go quietly into the night
please become a paid subscriber to my substack newsletter
i’ll post there soon but forgive the basic set up for now, I have a wife & child to support and my show was our family’s only source of income:
I missed this news. What happened?
At 2pm
@LBC Maajid Nawaz’s contract with LBC is up very shortly and following discussions with him, Maajid will no longer present a show on LBC with immediate effect. We thank Maajid for the contribution he has made to LBC and wish him well. https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1479452766334500868
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
We had this discussion last night. I don't have strong feelings about getting rid of the monarchy, but if we did why do we have this big thing about what to replace it with. It is not as if the Queen actually runs the country currently. We have an executive that does that and they could carry on doing it.
The armed forces swear loyalty to the Queen not PM. The monarch is head of the armed forces as well as Head of State but the PM is effectively Head of Government in the UK.
A Head of State who is also Head of Government and head of the armed forces too has too much power
I disagree. In my opinion (although I appreciate not yours) the Queen is powerless. I might not like it but Boris is in charge. They might swear loyalty to the Queen, but they do as Boris says, not as the Queen says.
No, if Boris tried to launch a military coup or impose a dictatorship under him the armed forces would refuse as they swear loyalty to the Queen not the PM
And if the Queen told the military to invade Parliament they wouldn't either?
So as you see that has nothing whatsoever to do with whom the military to swear loyalty to but all to do with the military (hopefully) not carrying out an unreasonable order.
Because it keeps a clear separation of powers between head of state and effective head of government. The PM can send troops to war abroad and preserve national security but the monarch still being head of the armed forces prevents a dictatorship at home
Health Sec Sajid Javid tells pool that you are 90 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with Omicron than Delta if you have been boosted, according to latest data he has
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what it becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that
The Tories ought to have considered that before they made such an arse of Brexit.
The argument is moot given that there is no reason to suppose that the EU would want us back.
Yes there really is. Britain returning humbly to the EU would be the ultimate demonstration that leaving the EU is bad and stupid. Thus shoring up the whole Project
The EU is also significantly stronger with the UK inside, and of course it would benefit most traders
However it is quite unlikely to happen, for other reasons
Nah. They've just spent years dealing with Brexit (which still isn't entirely resolved,) so the appetite to spend years negotiating Brentry (with a backdrop of anything from 35-45% of the population being very strongly opposed) is bound to be somewhat limited.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what is becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that. However I doubt full rejoin will ever get to 60% or even to 50%
At some point people will realise:
a. Brexit is an abject failure b. We're not going back
Then they will try to find ways to mitigate some, but by no means all, of the damage.
Brexit can’t be an “abject failure” any more than “desire” can be a failure or “volcanoes” can be a failure
Brexit is Sui generis. Simultaneously a final moral decision and a never ending historical process. There will not be a particular day in September 2027 when you will be able to say Right, it’s failed
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
99% of the global population have no idea who the President of Germany or Ireland are but 99% have heard of Queen Elizabeth II. Our constitutional monarchy is a great advert for global Britain while also not being the elected imperial presidencies of the US or France
That is because neither (particularly Ireland) had a great empire and both have been republics for sometime.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
And the added value is…
Democratic accountability. Whatever the level of power, be it vestigial legal authority or considerable "soft" power, it would be wielded by someone whose term would expire without them dying, and who could be prevented from re-election by the people.
Health Sec Sajid Javid tells pool that you are 90 per cent less likely to be hospitalised with Omicron than Delta if you have been boosted, according to latest data he has
This is very obvious now, we can see it in the prevalence vs in hospital data.
However it happened, the government made the right decision on not having a lockdown, now we need to roll back plan b and get back to no isolation, no masks, no COVID passes.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
99% of the global population have no idea who the President of Germany or Ireland are but 99% have heard of Queen Elizabeth II. Our constitutional monarchy is a great advert for global Britain while also not being the elected imperial presidencies of the US or France
Allow me to remind you of the Galapagos Islands. Famous for its relics and living fossils. Tourists love giant tortoises and marine lizards.
Yes and tourism brings lots of income to the Galapagos Islands.
We are a small, generally cold and wet island between the Atlantic and North Sea.
We have one global city in London, the only other reason most tourists come here is for our heritage and tradition, a key part of which is our royal family and palaces, castles, cathedrals and royal weddings etc
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
Maybe though Virginia won't settle. I mean, she may have her principles.
But even if she doesn't have her principles .... she may actually make **MORE** money by standing her ground.
Networks & tabloids will be begging for her full story if he ends up in court.
It will make the OJ Simpson trial look like a service dispute in Telford Small Claims Court.
We will hear no other news for weeks, as the trial unfolds, even if Taiwan is overwhelmed and Ukraine is invaded.
And I think we can discount Andy winning. Even with the best legal talent in the world, Andy is a dumbfuck and will say something really incriminating.
So when -- not if -- Virginia wins the court case, then she will be a hero to many.
Book deals, movie deals of her life. UN Special Envoy against Sex Trafficking.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what it becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that
The Tories ought to have considered that before they made such an arse of Brexit.
The argument is moot given that there is no reason to suppose that the EU would want us back.
Yes there really is. Britain returning humbly to the EU would be the ultimate demonstration that leaving the EU is bad and stupid. Thus shoring up the whole Project
The EU is also significantly stronger with the UK inside, and of course it would benefit most traders
However it is quite unlikely to happen, for other reasons
Nah. They've just spent years dealing with Brexit (which still isn't entirely resolved,) so the appetite to spend years negotiating Brentry (with a backdrop of anything from 35-45% of the population being very strongly opposed) is bound to be somewhat limited.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what is becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that. However I doubt full rejoin will ever get to 60% or even to 50%
At some point people will realise:
a. Brexit is an abject failure b. We're not going back
Then they will try to find ways to mitigate some, but by no means all, of the damage.
Brexit can’t be an “abject failure” any more than “desire” can be a failure or “volcanoes” can be a failure
Brexit is Sui generis. Simultaneously a final moral decision and a never ending historical process. There will not be a particular day in September 2027 when you will be able to say Right, it’s failed
Feudalism failed, but you can't point to specific day.
Vandalising statues is barbaric, and a jury endorsing mob rule is not an edifying spectacle.
Afternoon, Mr Dancer!
Completely coincidentally I have bought de Bedoyere's new history of the Roman Army, which has by a train of thought reminded me of the classical world more generally, and its little quirk. Some statues of Aphrodite were supposed to be so erotic in Ancient Greece that some of their devotees couldn't restrain their excitement. No idea if that is true, but it certainly adds a new dimension to statue-bothering.
Aphrodite Kallipygos. Venus of the beautiful buttocks
Yesterday it looked like Covid hospital numbers peaked on the 5th at around 4,100.
Latest update only covers to the 4th, but on that day the number in acute trusts actually being treated for Covid was 2,026.
So on the inflated numbers the hospital peak is half last year. And of that roughly half is either not really covid or not acute.
Don't get me started on the 'incidental' admissions nonsense – I will end up boring PBers to death! Incidental covid admissions is an oxymoron – given that by their very definition such people are not admitted for covid.
(And yes, I know, I know – they still need to be sequestered in a covid ward. But still...)
But then, as @Foxy points out, medical outcomes for people with various conditions and a side order of COVID are massively different....
Are you referring to the Nature paper he has cited, which uses ancient data from the pre-vaccine, alpha age?
Even if it is out of date, the changes in outcome were so radical that the medics will have to take the same precautions until proven otherwise.....
Not clear to me why a pre-vaccination report has much relevance TBH, but happy to be corrected.
If you have a report that a disease + condition X = *orders* of magnitude more bad outcomes.... well, it is not surprising that the medics are going "hey, throw that out the window, things are different now" without further evidence.
We must have plenty of real world evidence now, either to the affirmative or to the contrary, given how many 'incidental' admissions we have sustained since omicron arrived. Has anyone run the numbers?
You'd be wanting a clinical trial grade of evidence, no? Too many cross-correlations to rely on raw data, however. And no sane medic would put half the patients in the 'wrong' side with such a whacking disparity in anaesthesia outcomes.
Hmmmm
"Hi, I would like to run a clinical study. Half the patients will have their COVID ignored and we will go ahead with the operations, to see what happens. Yes, that increased their risk of death by 10x earlier in the epidemic. I hope it will be all fine now."
Surely we can see what the outcomes are for covid incidentals (in separate wards) versus non-covid patients? It strikes me that we must have that data already, we can actually analyse it, without changing any policy now.
Doesn't work, because there are so many potential biases. You MUST have proper balanced random sampling. And allocate the patients BEFORE you do the study. Justr saying we'll compare that lot with that lot because they are in different wards won't do. For one thing, I would expect that the age distribution of people with seriously harmful covid is going to differ from those with asymptomatic covid, so that's a confounding factor right there.
I feel like my last ten years* or so of work (which is basically doing as Anabobazina suggested) has been entirely invalidated.
It would be tricky and the results wouldn't stand up like a RCT (potential for lots of unobserved confounders) but there is still potential to do something useful. The better question perhaps is whether it's worth doing - the 'so what?' of the research. Say it shows there isn't much risk for incidental Covid admissions, what would that change? The patients would surely still go onto Covid-only wards (still a risk to others) and likely have non-essential treatment delayed anyway (risks to clinicians etc, risks from further spread from being e.g. wheeled to theatre).
*Part of my early career was spent on NEWS (National Early Warning Score) and more complex models for predicting which patients in hospital were at risk of adverse outcomes (death, cardiac arrest, ICU admission) within the next 24 hours. The models worked very well, in spite of the ultimate counfounder that clinicians kept intervening with sick patients (hopefully, in some cases at least, preventing adverse outcomes) and we could not control for those interventions in the models. So, either there was massive confounding or clinicians were essentially powerless to change outcomes anyway. If the latter then the whole thing was a massive waste of time (no point in flagging up patients at risk of adverse outcomes if no intervention will help!)
Sorry, didn't mean to hurt your feelings! That's interesting and useful and practical stuff.
I was just trying to think what would satisfy the let-it-rip and incidental-doesn't-matter constituencies in terms of studies, in view of the fact that they'd be seeking to pick holes in any research they didn't like.
Yep, one of the problems with observational studies is that if you don't like the answer you can just attack the decision to include/exclude a particular variable or quantise it in a particular way. And, if you have the funding/ability/time, do your own study with different variables until you get the opposite answer.
The prediction models we did on hospital risk were wrong, as the famous quote goes, but useful. Tested in the real world, they gave useful predictions that were eerily close in terms of predicting how may patients in a group would die for example. Descriptive modelling is a lot harder, imho, as you probably don't have enough to get great predictions so can't test that way, but can still pick out important factors (but may be undone by counfounding etc). Best thing I try and do is sensitivity analyses on everything I can think of. If I get broadly the same answer repeatedly, then I have a bit of confidence.
Great to hear that you are doing this work. Regarding your earlier question about whether it would change the policy response, well I guess it might, or it might not. But information is power and using the abundant real-world data we have (and which you are analysing) strikes me as far better approach than waving around a Nature report that dates back so far (pre vax, Alpha days) as to be flirting with obsolescence.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
And the added value is…
Democratic accountability. Whatever the level of power, be it vestigial legal authority or considerable "soft" power, it would be wielded by someone whose term would expire without them dying, and who could be prevented from re-election by the people.
Yes. When I pointed out that the "sovereign" of the UK needed a retirement age of 67 like the rest of us*, there was howling from the royalists that it would stop the Duke of Rothesay from becoming King. That was offered as a serious argument ...
*OK, OAP age - I do know about employment law. But it is a FTE job on any human sense.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
99% of the global population have no idea who the President of Germany or Ireland are but 99% have heard of Queen Elizabeth II. Our constitutional monarchy is a great advert for global Britain while also not being the elected imperial presidencies of the US or France
Allow me to remind you of the Galapagos Islands. Famous for its relics and living fossils. Tourists love giant tortoises and marine lizards.
Yes and tourism brings lots of income to the Galapagos Islands.
We are a small, generally cold and wet island between the Atlantic and North Sea.
We have one global city in London, the only other reason most tourists come here is for our heritage and tradition, a key part of which is our royal family and palaces and royal weddings etc
Which are the living fossils of modern political evolution. The Royal lizards, if you like. You see the point i am making?
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
99% of the global population have no idea who the President of Germany or Ireland are but 99% have heard of Queen Elizabeth II. Our constitutional monarchy is a great advert for global Britain while also not being the elected imperial presidencies of the US or France
Allow me to remind you of the Galapagos Islands. Famous for its relics and living fossils. Tourists love giant tortoises and marine lizards.
Yes and tourism brings lots of income to the Galapagos Islands.
We are a small, cold and wet island between the Atlantic and North Sea.
We have one global city in London, the only other reason most tourists come here is for our heritage and tradition, a key part of which is our royal family and palaces and royal weddings etc
Grr. We are NOT a small island. Great Britain is the 8th largest island in the world by land area, the (I think) 3rd by population. There are millions of islands in the world, tens or hundreds of thousands of them inhabited. To come 8th or 3rd in that list, makes us, I think, a large island.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
Point of order: it was Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter who married Shelley. I've never seen the statue because I avoid North London on a point of principle but I have read the Vindication of the Rights of Women (or at least I've read bits of it, it's rather repetitive).
I'm not sure whether to flag this or not but one point to say when it comes to the fight for the women's vote pre-WW1 is the question of whether it was meant for all women or just those who were "respectable" enough to be able to vote. Pre-1918, the UK electoral franchise was actually the most restrictive of the major European countries / colonies when it came to the male vote - one third to 40% of men didn't have the right to vote and the franchise was underpinned by the idea that you had to be "respectable" enough usually by owning property.
Was it Lloyd George who said "This is not a campaign for votes for women. But for votes for ladies"?
I think so. It was a complicated issue and the suffragettes were split themselves. During the war, some apparently opposed women's suffrage because it would mean they would get the vote but poorer men wouldn't. It also wasn't only wealth that was an issue but if you were married (property of husband therefore cannot vote) vs unmarried (could vote). In 1910, the Liberals blocked a Bill to allow unmarried women to vote which kicked the whole round of violence.
I think you see some of this class split amongst the voices today. To me The Fawcett Society and the likes of Stella Creasy are the epitome of middle class feminism, focusing on issues that mainly benefit well-off, educated women - number of women on Boards / as MPs, even the whole bringing the baby into the Commons - basked in a message that is the feminist version of trickle-down economics aka "well, if we get women on the Boards, all women will eventually benefit". Not sure that is the priority of poorer women.
An interesting but little known fact is that it was the 1832 Great Reform Act which disenfranchised women. Of course, precious few could. But those with property qualifications and, of course, unmarried with no male relatives, in rare cases, could. That is. There was no outright bar on it.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what it becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that
The Tories ought to have considered that before they made such an arse of Brexit.
The argument is moot given that there is no reason to suppose that the EU would want us back.
Yes there really is. Britain returning humbly to the EU would be the ultimate demonstration that leaving the EU is bad and stupid. Thus shoring up the whole Project
The EU is also significantly stronger with the UK inside, and of course it would benefit most traders
However it is quite unlikely to happen, for other reasons
Nah. They've just spent years dealing with Brexit (which still isn't entirely resolved,) so the appetite to spend years negotiating Brentry (with a backdrop of anything from 35-45% of the population being very strongly opposed) is bound to be somewhat limited.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what is becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that. However I doubt full rejoin will ever get to 60% or even to 50%
At some point people will realise:
a. Brexit is an abject failure b. We're not going back
Then they will try to find ways to mitigate some, but by no means all, of the damage.
Brexit can’t be an “abject failure” any more than “desire” can be a failure or “volcanoes” can be a failure
Brexit is Sui generis. Simultaneously a final moral decision and a never ending historical process. There will not be a particular day in September 2027 when you will be able to say Right, it’s failed
Feudalism failed, but you can't point to specific day.
The Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy, who has been accused of a series of serious sex offences against young women, has been freed on bail.
Mendy, who was held at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool before recently being transferred to HMP Manchester, was granted bail by Judge Patrick Thompson at a private hearing at Chester crown court, with press excluded from the courtroom.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what it becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that
The Tories ought to have considered that before they made such an arse of Brexit.
The argument is moot given that there is no reason to suppose that the EU would want us back.
Yes there really is. Britain returning humbly to the EU would be the ultimate demonstration that leaving the EU is bad and stupid. Thus shoring up the whole Project
The EU is also significantly stronger with the UK inside, and of course it would benefit most traders
However it is quite unlikely to happen, for other reasons
Nah. They've just spent years dealing with Brexit (which still isn't entirely resolved,) so the appetite to spend years negotiating Brentry (with a backdrop of anything from 35-45% of the population being very strongly opposed) is bound to be somewhat limited.
There has been quite a significant swing to “join” the EU over “stay out” in recent months. I wonder, again, if at some point Labour will seek to take advantage of this. They are now led by an arch-Remainer
It would be an incredibly difficult political manoeuvre to pull off, however
Still only 45% want to rejoin though, even less than the 48% who voted Remain.
Starmer backing Rejoin would also be political suicide as it would hand the redwall back to Boris on a plate
Would it? We don’t know that - unless you have granular data on the people switching from “stay out” to “join”
They could be Red Wallers. Or Scots. Or professional knitters. We need to know before we can see if Labour could benefit from cultivating them
Given 48% backed Remain even in 2016 just 45% backing Rejoin now means even some Remainers are no longer Rejoiners but undecided.
If Starmer backed Rejoin Boris will be re elected easily under FPTP and tye redwall would stay blue. Hence he will back a customs union at most.
Rejoin would need to get to 60%+ for Starmer to even consider it
Remember that comparing 45% in a poll where "Don't know" is a valid result with 48% in a referendum where "Don't know" isn't counted isn't really fair. To quote myself;
Tricky to compare directly with the 2016 results, because they didn't allow DK. If you just ignore the don't knows, you get R56 L44.
Now, this isn't going to reverse anything tomorrow. But I do wonder what happens to a country where the Powers That Be refuse to discuss (or even double down) on something that a plurality-to-majority think is a mistake and would prefer to reverse.
60:40 might come round sooner than we expect.
If it reached 60/40 and stayed there I’m sure Labour would go for it. They are all Remainers. And, indeed, why should they not? Democracy is there to serve public opinion
The question then is: would the EU have us back? The French might be tempted to say Non for Anglophobic fun but in the end they would, as it would strengthen the EU in multiple ways, not least by proving that leaving is stupid and ultimately impossible
They would exact a price, however. We’d surely have to join the euro (and Schengen) thus locking us in forever. It really is impossible to leave the euro, as Greece discovered
In which case it really would be bye to an independent UK, as part of the eurozone we would just be a region of what is becoming an increasingly Federal EU superstate.
Even EFTA would be preferable to that. However I doubt full rejoin will ever get to 60% or even to 50%
At some point people will realise:
a. Brexit is an abject failure b. We're not going back
Then they will try to find ways to mitigate some, but by no means all, of the damage.
Brexit can’t be an “abject failure” any more than “desire” can be a failure or “volcanoes” can be a failure
Brexit is Sui generis. Simultaneously a final moral decision and a never ending historical process. There will not be a particular day in September 2027 when you will be able to say Right, it’s failed
If just 15% of the people think Brexit is going well, does that count as "sui generis" ? Now there's plenty of delusion on both sides. Remainers think they can go back to the status quo ante while Leavers blame Remainers/the EU/May/ anybody and anything apart from their decision being a bad idea. Eventually they will give up their delusions and accept the crappy outcome for what it is. Then you can start looking at ways to make it a bit more comfortable.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
99% of the global population have no idea who the President of Germany or Ireland are but 99% have heard of Queen Elizabeth II. Our constitutional monarchy is a great advert for global Britain while also not being the elected imperial presidencies of the US or France
Allow me to remind you of the Galapagos Islands. Famous for its relics and living fossils. Tourists love giant tortoises and marine lizards.
Yes and tourism brings lots of income to the Galapagos Islands.
We are a small, cold and wet island between the Atlantic and North Sea.
We have one global city in London, the only other reason most tourists come here is for our heritage and tradition, a key part of which is our royal family and palaces and royal weddings etc
Grr. We are NOT a small island. Great Britain is the 8th largest island in the world by land area, the (I think) 3rd by population. There are millions of islands in the world, tens or hundreds of thousands of them inhabited. To come 8th or 3rd in that list, makes us, I think, a large island.
We may be the 21st largest nation by population and the 5th largest by gdp.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
We had this discussion last night. I don't have strong feelings about getting rid of the monarchy, but if we did why do we have this big thing about what to replace it with. It is not as if the Queen actually runs the country currently. We have an executive that does that and they could carry on doing it.
The armed forces swear loyalty to the Queen not PM. The monarch is head of the armed forces as well as Head of State but the PM is effectively Head of Government in the UK.
A Head of State who is also Head of Government and head of the armed forces too has too much power
I disagree. In my opinion (although I appreciate not yours) the Queen is powerless. I might not like it but Boris is in charge. They might swear loyalty to the Queen, but they do as Boris says, not as the Queen says.
No, if Boris tried to launch a military coup or impose a dictatorship under him the armed forces would refuse as they swear loyalty to the Queen not the PM
And if the Queen told the military to invade Parliament they wouldn't either?
So as you see that has nothing whatsoever to do with whom the military to swear loyalty to but all to do with the military (hopefully) not carrying out an unreasonable order.
Because it keeps a clear separation of powers between head of state and effective head of government. The PM can send troops to war abroad and preserve national security but the monarch still being head of the armed forces prevents a dictatorship at home
How? As pointed out it doesn't matter who is head of state the military will not (hopefully) do any of these things and parliament (hopefully) will stop such a thing. It doesn't matter two hoots who the head of state is we hope that the military will not obey a rule from the PM or the Queen to set up a dictatorship.
It really makes no difference whatsoever who is in charge. The idea that the Queen has any say these days is for the birds. Do you really think if Boris asked the military to declare him dictator for life they would say 'We just need to check in with the Queen whether that is ok with her or not'. Of course not.
Presumably the V&A tattoos are how you distinguish nice girls from chav girls nowadays,
Perhaps its how the V&A protect Venus's .. er .. assets, in the absence of copyright law extending enough centuries beyond the death of the artist.
There is copyright in the photo itself (presumably by the museum staff), and the institution can demand copyright also in return for allowing a third party access to the object. As I know very well from having had to stump up for such things ...
The watermark simply deters people fro copying and posting on the net regardless.
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
Point of order: it was Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter who married Shelley. I've never seen the statue because I avoid North London on a point of principle but I have read the Vindication of the Rights of Women (or at least I've read bits of it, it's rather repetitive).
I'm not sure whether to flag this or not but one point to say when it comes to the fight for the women's vote pre-WW1 is the question of whether it was meant for all women or just those who were "respectable" enough to be able to vote. Pre-1918, the UK electoral franchise was actually the most restrictive of the major European countries / colonies when it came to the male vote - one third to 40% of men didn't have the right to vote and the franchise was underpinned by the idea that you had to be "respectable" enough usually by owning property.
Was it Lloyd George who said "This is not a campaign for votes for women. But for votes for ladies"?
I think so. It was a complicated issue and the suffragettes were split themselves. During the war, some apparently opposed women's suffrage because it would mean they would get the vote but poorer men wouldn't. It also wasn't only wealth that was an issue but if you were married (property of husband therefore cannot vote) vs unmarried (could vote). In 1910, the Liberals blocked a Bill to allow unmarried women to vote which kicked the whole round of violence.
I think you see some of this class split amongst the voices today. To me The Fawcett Society and the likes of Stella Creasy are the epitome of middle class feminism, focusing on issues that mainly benefit well-off, educated women - number of women on Boards / as MPs, even the whole bringing the baby into the Commons - basked in a message that is the feminist version of trickle-down economics aka "well, if we get women on the Boards, all women will eventually benefit". Not sure that is the priority of poorer women.
I think that just shows your anti-middle class prejudice. Creasy has done sterling work on payday loan charges, opposed the UC cut, and campaigned against gang and knife crime all items of concern to working class women in Walthamstow.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
99% of the global population have no idea who the President of Germany or Ireland are but 99% have heard of Queen Elizabeth II. Our constitutional monarchy is a great advert for global Britain while also not being the elected imperial presidencies of the US or France
Allow me to remind you of the Galapagos Islands. Famous for its relics and living fossils. Tourists love giant tortoises and marine lizards.
Yes and tourism brings lots of income to the Galapagos Islands.
We are a small, cold and wet island between the Atlantic and North Sea.
We have one global city in London, the only other reason most tourists come here is for our heritage and tradition, a key part of which is our royal family and palaces and royal weddings etc
Grr. We are NOT a small island. Great Britain is the 8th largest island in the world by land area, the (I think) 3rd by population. There are millions of islands in the world, tens or hundreds of thousands of them inhabited. To come 8th or 3rd in that list, makes us, I think, a large island.
We may be the 21st largest nation by population and the 5th largest by gdp.
We are only the 78th largest nation by land area
He's talking about islands. GB. The nation or rather state is (still) the UK. Which has lots of islands and a bit of another big one (for now).
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
And the added value is…
Democratic accountability. Whatever the level of power, be it vestigial legal authority or considerable "soft" power, it would be wielded by someone whose term would expire without them dying, and who could be prevented from re-election by the people.
Okay let’s get serious.
We can learn from where there has been bourgeoisie - PB - revolutions, your heritage goes out with the Bath water. That heritage linked all your class system together into one nation. It linked all your localism together into one nation. It’s not about a simple idealogical tweak to remove “accident of birth” it’s about the destruction of heritage that stops you being different class based nations, different regions in conflict. The Marxists and socialists know this, that’s why they want it. Don’t fall into their trap.
I can sympathise with removing some statues (by legal and democratic methods) but it isn't a good idea as a rule. It removes part of the historical fabric, some are works of art with merit and it also removes talking points/ educational opportunities.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
We had this discussion last night. I don't have strong feelings about getting rid of the monarchy, but if we did why do we have this big thing about what to replace it with. It is not as if the Queen actually runs the country currently. We have an executive that does that and they could carry on doing it.
The armed forces swear loyalty to the Queen not PM. The monarch is head of the armed forces as well as Head of State but the PM is effectively Head of Government in the UK.
A Head of State who is also Head of Government and head of the armed forces too has too much power
I disagree. In my opinion (although I appreciate not yours) the Queen is powerless. I might not like it but Boris is in charge. They might swear loyalty to the Queen, but they do as Boris says, not as the Queen says.
No, if Boris tried to launch a military coup or impose a dictatorship under him the armed forces would refuse as they swear loyalty to the Queen not the PM
And if the Queen told the military to invade Parliament they wouldn't either?
So as you see that has nothing whatsoever to do with whom the military to swear loyalty to but all to do with the military (hopefully) not carrying out an unreasonable order.
Because it keeps a clear separation of powers between head of state and effective head of government. The PM can send troops to war abroad and preserve national security but the monarch still being head of the armed forces prevents a dictatorship at home
How? As pointed out it doesn't matter who is head of state the military will not (hopefully) do any of these things and parliament (hopefully) will stop such a thing. It doesn't matter two hoots who the head of state is we hope that the military will not obey a rule from the PM or the Queen to set up a dictatorship.
It really makes no difference whatsoever who is in charge. The idea that the Queen has any say these days is for the birds. Do you really think if Boris asked the military to declare him dictator for life they would say 'We just need to check in with the Queen whether that is ok with her or not'. Of course not.
They would now.
If the PM became a President and head of the armed forces as well as Head of State in addition to being effective Head of Government as he is now however then in theory Boris could use the armed forces to make himself dictator of the UK for life.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
And the added value is…
Democratic accountability. Whatever the level of power, be it vestigial legal authority or considerable "soft" power, it would be wielded by someone whose term would expire without them dying, and who could be prevented from re-election by the people.
Okay let’s get serious.
We can learn from where there has been bourgeoisie - PB - revolutions, your heritage goes out with the Bath water. That heritage linked all your class system together into one nation. It linked all your localism together into one nation. It’s not about a simple idealogical tweak to remove “accident of birth” it’s about the destruction of heritage that stops you being different class based nations, different regions in conflict. The Marxists and socialists know this, that’s why they want it. Don’t fall into their trap.
I talk about democracy and you talk about heritage. I don't think I see your point at all (how can heritage be so dependent on one particular living person?) but my instinct is that if heritage becomes an obstruction for democracy, heritage should move.
Also, what's all this rubbish about bourgeoisie revolutions? They have tended to be about extending the power base down to the non-aristocracy. The Liberal and the Social questions are different ones, which is why socialists so often hate liberals. Successful liberal revolutions tend to be necessary, in the end, to prevent the wholesale overthrow of the established order. But none of that applies anyway, because we're through to the other side of that, which makes me wonder just what the heck you're talking about.
Vandalising statues is barbaric, and a jury endorsing mob rule is not an edifying spectacle.
Afternoon, Mr Dancer!
Completely coincidentally I have bought de Bedoyere's new history of the Roman Army, which has by a train of thought reminded me of the classical world more generally, and its little quirk. Some statues of Aphrodite were supposed to be so erotic in Ancient Greece that some of their devotees couldn't restrain their excitement. No idea if that is true, but it certainly adds a new dimension to statue-bothering.
Aphrodite Kallipygos. Venus of the beautiful buttocks
She has a better because firmer bottom than the Grace, though the Graces more slender attractive legs (imo obviously it’s subjective). Victoria Carmen Sonne has the best legs ever, I love them.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
And the added value is…
Democratic accountability. Whatever the level of power, be it vestigial legal authority or considerable "soft" power, it would be wielded by someone whose term would expire without them dying, and who could be prevented from re-election by the people.
Okay let’s get serious.
We can learn from where there has been bourgeoisie - PB - revolutions, your heritage goes out with the Bath water. That heritage linked all your class system together into one nation. It linked all your localism together into one nation. It’s not about a simple idealogical tweak to remove “accident of birth” it’s about the destruction of heritage that stops you being different class based nations, different regions in conflict. The Marxists and socialists know this, that’s why they want it. Don’t fall into their trap.
I talk about democracy and you talk about heritage. I don't think I see your point at all (how can heritage be so dependent on one particular living person?) but my instinct is that if heritage becomes an obstruction for democracy, heritage should move.
Also, what's all this rubbish about bourgeoisie revolutions? They have tended to be about extending the power base down to the non-aristocracy. The Liberal and the Social questions are different ones, which is why socialists so often hate liberals. Successful liberal revolutions tend to be necessary, in the end, to prevent the wholesale overthrow of the established order. But none of that applies anyway, because we're through to the other side of that, which makes me wonder just what the heck you're talking about.
Farooq - we never agree!
I’m blaming you for that, though I guess you’ll disagree and blame me 🙄
In my previous home town of Horsham there used to be a vile piece of public 'art', a hideous fountain known as 'the malteser'. It was like a large crusty eyeball that tottered upwards as it gushed water out of its lower portions. It was far more offensive than 10 Edward Colstons dancing a nude jig. I would have liked someone to criminally damage it (in fact I believe someone did attach chains to it and drag it away once, only for it to be repaired at the taxpayers' expense). It only went eventually because the costs of repair and maintenance became untenable. I would have a lot of sympathy with someone taking it upon themselves to get rid of it. However, it would still have been criminal damage.
Yes. Even uglier than I remember it. The really bad thing was, it was meant to commemorate Shelley, but it was just a repurposed design with a plaque of one of his poems tacked on. A figurative statue of the man would have been a million times better in terms of actually attracting fans of the poet to the town. Very few of whom are likely to have come to have a photo taken standing in front of an enormous gushing lychee. The Lib Dems were responsible for its creation and it's protracted reign of terror.
That is fucking hideous, right down to the mud-brown colour. Jeez Louise
Figurative statues don't always satisfy a consensus (though why should they, I suppose?). Ms Wollstonecroft (aka Mrs P. B. Shelley) is perhaps more famous for her physical attributes than her intellectual output thanks to her statue.
Point of order: it was Mary Wollstonecraft's daughter who married Shelley. I've never seen the statue because I avoid North London on a point of principle but I have read the Vindication of the Rights of Women (or at least I've read bits of it, it's rather repetitive).
I'm not sure whether to flag this or not but one point to say when it comes to the fight for the women's vote pre-WW1 is the question of whether it was meant for all women or just those who were "respectable" enough to be able to vote. Pre-1918, the UK electoral franchise was actually the most restrictive of the major European countries / colonies when it came to the male vote - one third to 40% of men didn't have the right to vote and the franchise was underpinned by the idea that you had to be "respectable" enough usually by owning property.
Was it Lloyd George who said "This is not a campaign for votes for women. But for votes for ladies"?
I think so. It was a complicated issue and the suffragettes were split themselves. During the war, some apparently opposed women's suffrage because it would mean they would get the vote but poorer men wouldn't. It also wasn't only wealth that was an issue but if you were married (property of husband therefore cannot vote) vs unmarried (could vote). In 1910, the Liberals blocked a Bill to allow unmarried women to vote which kicked the whole round of violence.
I think you see some of this class split amongst the voices today. To me The Fawcett Society and the likes of Stella Creasy are the epitome of middle class feminism, focusing on issues that mainly benefit well-off, educated women - number of women on Boards / as MPs, even the whole bringing the baby into the Commons - basked in a message that is the feminist version of trickle-down economics aka "well, if we get women on the Boards, all women will eventually benefit". Not sure that is the priority of poorer women.
Stella Creasy's most successful campaign was against Wonga and similar loan companies that preyed on the poor. Middle class feminism?
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
And the added value is…
Democratic accountability. Whatever the level of power, be it vestigial legal authority or considerable "soft" power, it would be wielded by someone whose term would expire without them dying, and who could be prevented from re-election by the people.
Okay let’s get serious.
We can learn from where there has been bourgeoisie - PB - revolutions, your heritage goes out with the Bath water. That heritage linked all your class system together into one nation. It linked all your localism together into one nation. It’s not about a simple idealogical tweak to remove “accident of birth” it’s about the destruction of heritage that stops you being different class based nations, different regions in conflict. The Marxists and socialists know this, that’s why they want it. Don’t fall into their trap.
I talk about democracy and you talk about heritage. I don't think I see your point at all (how can heritage be so dependent on one particular living person?) but my instinct is that if heritage becomes an obstruction for democracy, heritage should move.
Also, what's all this rubbish about bourgeoisie revolutions? They have tended to be about extending the power base down to the non-aristocracy. The Liberal and the Social questions are different ones, which is why socialists so often hate liberals. Successful liberal revolutions tend to be necessary, in the end, to prevent the wholesale overthrow of the established order. But none of that applies anyway, because we're through to the other side of that, which makes me wonder just what the heck you're talking about.
Farooq - we never agree!
I’m blaming you for that, though I guess you’ll disagree and blame me 🙄
Yes, the main problem is that your views have an eccentric relationship with the facts. I won't blame you, it's almost certainly the facts' fault.
I would be careful there, by the same logic the uk tax payer was never stumping up for the Indian Space program?
Agreed. We seem to be wading through flood waters of "Hard-up Prince Andy" stories in the press & I think the flood water will keep rising.
The stories are surely softening us patsies up for the absolutely ginormous bill .... as Andy "I Can't Remember Meeting Her" settles out of court and forgets to bring his wallet.
Agreed. As all parties are comfortably well off today, I don’t think it reflects great on any of them to settle this out of court and not fight to clear their name. So gynormous legal bill it is. Jaundice versus jaundice.
I am a big supporter of the Royal family, those calling themselves republican on pb havn’t a clue how to replace it with better. But I fear as state money goes in one end of royal ltd and paying out other end to lawyers for this, the republicans are going to have a lot of fun. 🤨
I am instinctively (moderate) conservative, so not really in favour of getting rid of the Royal Family, not because I am a strong supporter but because it is a change that is unnecessary. However, I can think of a much better system quite easily. This would be a Presidential system akin to Germany and Ireland where the President is a largely ceremonial role, not unlike our own monarch. Those that are in favour of HMQ could vote for her, and she would probably easily win. The House of Windsor could remain as "Presidents" for as long as they remain popular. They would also be absolutely sure that they really do have the support of the people.
There you go, not difficult really.
99% of the global population have no idea who the President of Germany or Ireland are but 99% have heard of Queen Elizabeth II. Our constitutional monarchy is a great advert for global Britain while also not being the elected imperial presidencies of the US or France
Allow me to remind you of the Galapagos Islands. Famous for its relics and living fossils. Tourists love giant tortoises and marine lizards.
Yes and tourism brings lots of income to the Galapagos Islands.
We are a small, cold and wet island between the Atlantic and North Sea.
We have one global city in London, the only other reason most tourists come here is for our heritage and tradition, a key part of which is our royal family and palaces and royal weddings etc
Grr. We are NOT a small island. Great Britain is the 8th largest island in the world by land area, the (I think) 3rd by population. There are millions of islands in the world, tens or hundreds of thousands of them inhabited. To come 8th or 3rd in that list, makes us, I think, a large island.
We may be the 21st largest nation by population and the 5th largest by gdp.
We are only the 78th largest nation by land area
He's talking about islands. GB. The nation or rather state is (still) the UK. Which has lots of islands and a bit of another big one (for now).
The UK consists of more inhabited islands than I would have guessed.
Comments
Edit: to clarify, the point of the BBC story is to evidence that many on your side of the political divide would quite like to have a bash at various other statues, and, because one group got let off for doing so, it is now more likely that others will be encouraged to follow suit.
I think you see some of this class split amongst the voices today. To me The Fawcett Society and the likes of Stella Creasy are the epitome of middle class feminism, focusing on issues that mainly benefit well-off, educated women - number of women on Boards / as MPs, even the whole bringing the baby into the Commons - basked in a message that is the feminist version of trickle-down economics aka "well, if we get women on the Boards, all women will eventually benefit". Not sure that is the priority of poorer women.
Germany runs the Eurozone effectively and France runs EU foreign policy, we would not get a look in. Had staying in the EU required joining the Euro I would have voted Leave
The Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy, who has been accused of a series of serious sex offences against young women, has been freed on bail.
Mendy, who was held at HMP Altcourse in Liverpool before recently being transferred to HMP Manchester, was granted bail by Judge Patrick Thompson at a private hearing at Chester crown court, with press excluded from the courtroom.
This stinks.
So as you see that has nothing whatsoever to do with whom the military to swear loyalty to but all to do with the military (hopefully) not carrying out an unreasonable order.
Since Trump he has gone proper bonkers. I remember the days when he appeared to be a voice of reason, a Lib Dem that I think if PB had their own MP they could vote on he would win quite easily.
Edit:-
LBC has released a statement this afternoon confirming that presenter Maajid Nawaz is leaving the station with “immediate effect”:
“Maajid Nawaz’s contract with LBC is up very shortly and following discussions with him, Maajid will no longer present a show on LBC with immediate effect. We thank Maajid for the contribution he has made to LBC and wish him well.”
@LBC
Maajid Nawaz’s contract with LBC is up very shortly and following discussions with him, Maajid will no longer present a show on LBC with immediate effect. We thank Maajid for the contribution he has made to LBC and wish him well.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1479452766334500868
Brexit is Sui generis. Simultaneously a final moral decision and a never ending historical process. There will not be a particular day in September 2027 when you will be able to say Right, it’s failed
Whatever the level of power, be it vestigial legal authority or considerable "soft" power, it would be wielded by someone whose term would expire without them dying, and who could be prevented from re-election by the people.
However it happened, the government made the right decision on not having a lockdown, now we need to roll back plan b and get back to no isolation, no masks, no COVID passes.
We are a small, generally cold and wet island between the Atlantic and North Sea.
We have one global city in London, the only other reason most tourists come here is for our heritage and tradition, a key part of which is our royal family and palaces, castles, cathedrals and royal weddings etc
But even if she doesn't have her principles .... she may actually make **MORE** money by standing her ground.
Networks & tabloids will be begging for her full story if he ends up in court.
It will make the OJ Simpson trial look like a service dispute in Telford Small Claims Court.
We will hear no other news for weeks, as the trial unfolds, even if Taiwan is overwhelmed and Ukraine is invaded.
And I think we can discount Andy winning. Even with the best legal talent in the world, Andy is a dumbfuck and will say something really incriminating.
So when -- not if -- Virginia wins the court case, then she will be a hero to many.
Book deals, movie deals of her life. UN Special Envoy against Sex Trafficking.
3 Graces at the V&A?
*OK, OAP age - I do know about employment law. But it is a FTE job on any human sense.
We are NOT a small island.
Great Britain is the 8th largest island in the world by land area, the (I think) 3rd by population.
There are millions of islands in the world, tens or hundreds of thousands of them inhabited. To come 8th or 3rd in that list, makes us, I think, a large island.
Of course, precious few could. But those with property qualifications and, of course, unmarried with no male relatives, in rare cases, could.
That is. There was no outright bar on it.
We are only the 78th largest nation by land area
It really makes no difference whatsoever who is in charge. The idea that the Queen has any say these days is for the birds. Do you really think if Boris asked the military to declare him dictator for life they would say 'We just need to check in with the Queen whether that is ok with her or not'. Of course not.
The watermark simply deters people fro copying and posting on the net regardless.
We can learn from where there has been bourgeoisie - PB - revolutions, your heritage goes out with the Bath water. That heritage linked all your class system together into one nation. It linked all your localism together into one nation. It’s not about a simple idealogical tweak to remove “accident of birth” it’s about the destruction of heritage that stops you being different class based nations, different regions in conflict. The Marxists and socialists know this, that’s why they want it. Don’t fall into their trap.
Or. Carry On Behind.
Edit. Or this thread has bottomed out. That wins 👍🏻
If the PM became a President and head of the armed forces as well as Head of State in addition to being effective Head of Government as he is now however then in theory Boris could use the armed forces to make himself dictator of the UK for life.
I don't think I see your point at all (how can heritage be so dependent on one particular living person?) but my instinct is that if heritage becomes an obstruction for democracy, heritage should move.
Also, what's all this rubbish about bourgeoisie revolutions? They have tended to be about extending the power base down to the non-aristocracy. The Liberal and the Social questions are different ones, which is why socialists so often hate liberals. Successful liberal revolutions tend to be necessary, in the end, to prevent the wholesale overthrow of the established order. But none of that applies anyway, because we're through to the other side of that, which makes me wonder just what the heck you're talking about.
I’m blaming you for that, though I guess you’ll disagree and blame me 🙄