Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Starmer’s approval rating no change at -2% – politicalbetting.com

135678

Comments

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,149
    edited May 2022
    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't like discussing HMQ's death. It feels inappropriate.

    However, I suspect that after she does die an awful lot of muck is going to come to the surface.

    If Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and the rest of it is what's at the surface while she's alive, just what muck could be hidden?
    Moot point. The thing keeping any putative muck from surfacing is not Betty or even her behalf. It's the institution. That doesn't go away after she breathes her last, and so this idea that the floodgates will suddenly open requires a little more explanation to be plausible. I'm not buying it personally.
    Indeed, Charles is effectively Prince Regent and in reality Head of State now in all but name, certainly in terms of performing most of the day to day functions of the Monarch
    I'll bet someone out there is saying the key moment was when Her Majesty made clear Camilla would become Queen (something some people get weirdly upset about), that it must have shown Charles was not running the operation.
    But by definition it won't be her decision. She only wanted it to happen. Can't order it.
    Sure, but it's something we already knew Charles wanted, and he got his mum to release a statement saying she agreed to boost the idea, and she's barely been seen out and about since - conspiracy theory territory.
    Good heavens. I had no idea people thought that way - and still less that the Duke of R even bothered to go to those lengths for fear of them.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    EPG said:

    Nato is not going to be putting boots on the ground in Siberia or nuking Moscow. So of course the war is going to end with an agreement acceptable to Russia, at which point the question becomes whether several years of war will improve the tenor of that agreement.

    Russia's authoritarian leadership will accept an agreement when they believe that is a better alternative to them than continuing to fight a war. This is why it is right to do everything we can to support Ukraine, so that the cost of fighting the war is as high as possible for Russia, and so the agreement will be as favourable to Ukraine as possible.

    Hopefully this will mean a Ukraine completely free of Russian occupation, where the payoff for Russia's authoritarian leadership is an end to the destruction of their armed forces and a chance to re-establish the domestic safety of the regime. This is likely going to require a lot more in the way of destroyed Russian tanks, but hopefully the additional weaponry being supplied to Ukraine will accelerate this process.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758

    Heathener said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    We have a part time monarch.

    Not for very long though.
    Charles should be appointed Regent if she is no longer capable. Only breaking her coronation vow in a very specific and limited way.
    Or just scrap the monarchy.

    I think she's been amazing and I have great respect for her, despite some mistakes, but the institution is past its sell by date.
    I agree with you that the monarchy needs to go, but the issue is what to do with the powers vested in the Monarch that they simply do not use?

    We would finally need a written constitution. Are you really going to leave that in the hands of someone like Boris?
    Ahem. It's already written. Just not codified.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Carnyx said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    In which case you have singlehandedly destroyed the glorious UK (mostly English) constitution. They have no right to be otherwise; they are absolute menaces if they are not figureheads.

    Isn't our system that they are not legally figureheads, so long as in action they remain figureheads? Subtle distinction.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    Remind me of the origins of the volkswagen name and marque?
    Next: Rheinmettal Krupps demands that Kyiv sits down to negotiate, and I G Farben calls for “free exports of gas”
    Germany is so basket case that nutter Mutti Merkels mob are popular again after like 3 months of opposition
    Germany is having an Astonishingly Bad War. Any sense of moral leadership that they had under Merkel - which was increasingly threadbare - has been cast to the winds. Terrible, tone-deaf weirdness day after day

    I think their guilt complex about WW2, esp with regard to Russia, goes so deep they cannot see straight. Russia is in a sense the mirror image, also obsessed with WW2 but from the opposite perspective

    And we think we are peculiarly nostalgic in Britain, when we hum the Dambusters tune at football matches….

    EU led by the mad Germans in the Attic, some Italian banker and McMacron and fries. It's got 4 years left tops
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,091
    edited May 2022

    Heathener said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    We have a part time monarch.

    Not for very long though.
    Charles should be appointed Regent if she is no longer capable. Only breaking her coronation vow in a very specific and limited way.
    Or just scrap the monarchy.

    I think she's been amazing and I have great respect for her, despite some mistakes, but the institution is past its sell by date.
    I agree with you that the monarchy needs to go, but the issue is what to do with the powers vested in the Monarch that they simply do not use?

    We would finally need a written constitution. Are you really going to leave that in the hands of someone like Boris?
    I don't see it.

    The most stable countries are on the whole those with constitutional monarchies.

    If the setup did not work I might agree with you. However it does work.

    Why settle for second best, never mind deliberately introduce it unnecessarily?
  • TazTaz Posts: 10,704
    ydoethur said:
    Torybear shits in woods.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Heathener said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    We have a part time monarch.

    Not for very long though.
    Charles should be appointed Regent if she is no longer capable. Only breaking her coronation vow in a very specific and limited way.
    Or just scrap the monarchy.

    I think she's been amazing and I have great respect for her, despite some mistakes, but the institution is past its sell by date.
    I agree with you that the monarchy needs to go, but the issue is what to do with the powers vested in the Monarch that they simply do not use?

    We would finally need a written constitution. Are you really going to leave that in the hands of someone like Boris?
    Prerogative powers are already largely in the hands of someone very like Boris - Boris.

    Codification of our constitution is one of those topics that seems to me to be potentially a good or bad idea, but generally when brought up it is regarding a problem codification would not resolve (like the idea it automatically makes things clearer, as though codified systems do not have plenty of constitutional ambiguity).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    EPG said:

    Nato is not going to be putting boots on the ground in Siberia or nuking Moscow. So of course the war is going to end with an agreement acceptable to Russia, at which point the question becomes whether several years of war will improve the tenor of that agreement.

    Russia's authoritarian leadership will accept an agreement when they believe that is a better alternative to them than continuing to fight a war. This is why it is right to do everything we can to support Ukraine, so that the cost of fighting the war is as high as possible for Russia, and so the agreement will be as favourable to Ukraine as possible.

    Hopefully this will mean a Ukraine completely free of Russian occupation, where the payoff for Russia's authoritarian leadership is an end to the destruction of their armed forces and a chance to re-establish the domestic safety of the regime. This is likely going to require a lot more in the way of destroyed Russian tanks, but hopefully the additional weaponry being supplied to Ukraine will accelerate this process.
    75 days in, and we are a third of the way through the Russian tanks. Another 75 days at the same rate of attrition, and there will barely be a Russian land army left to fight.

    Keep the weapons flowing from the West, along with the training to use them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    MattW said:

    Heathener said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    We have a part time monarch.

    Not for very long though.
    Charles should be appointed Regent if she is no longer capable. Only breaking her coronation vow in a very specific and limited way.
    Or just scrap the monarchy.

    I think she's been amazing and I have great respect for her, despite some mistakes, but the institution is past its sell by date.
    I agree with you that the monarchy needs to go, but the issue is what to do with the powers vested in the Monarch that they simply do not use?

    We would finally need a written constitution. Are you really going to leave that in the hands of someone like Boris?
    I don't see it.

    The most stable countries are on the whole those with constitutional monarchies.

    Why settle for second best, never mind deliberately introduce it?
    And Switzerland. But I don't think that's an option for us.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't like discussing HMQ's death. It feels inappropriate.

    However, I suspect that after she does die an awful lot of muck is going to come to the surface.

    If Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and the rest of it is what's at the surface while she's alive, just what muck could be hidden?
    Moot point. The thing keeping any putative muck from surfacing is not Betty or even her behalf. It's the institution. That doesn't go away after she breathes her last, and so this idea that the floodgates will suddenly open requires a little more explanation to be plausible. I'm not buying it personally.
    I am hoping that Chas n baldy hate Andrew as much as he deserves and will kick him into oblivion by calling in his debts to HMQ within minutes of the death cert being signed. Otherwise, no change.
    After current reign is history, perhaps UK should go full Dutch-Scandinavian, royalty-wise?

    Keep the Changing of the Guard for the tourist trade, give Chuck & Cam & Will & Kate free bicycles for life AND severely limit what spawn of future kings & queens make it into the charmed circle.

    PLUS sack the chinless/brainless wonders infesting the Palace, along with all the shiftless cousins & etc, and tell the pack of 'em to fuck off and find semi-useful work.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Pulpstar said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    The Queen is living history, a colossus in a time of pygmies.
    Well she might be, but let's not overstate things. The empire was an empire, the commonwealth is (Johnson is sometimes right) a piccaninnyfest and a series of money- and drug- laundries. Any 96 year old is living history, and I am not personally a pygmy.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    Remind me of the origins of the volkswagen name and marque?
    Next: Rheinmettal Krupps demands that Kyiv sits down to negotiate, and I G Farben calls for “free exports of gas”
    Germany is so basket case that nutter Mutti Merkels mob are popular again after like 3 months of opposition
    Germany is having an Astonishingly Bad War. Any sense of moral leadership that they had under Merkel - which was increasingly threadbare - has been cast to the winds. Terrible, tone-deaf weirdness day after day

    I think their guilt complex about WW2, esp with regard to Russia, goes so deep they cannot see straight. Russia is in a sense the mirror image, also obsessed with WW2 but from the opposite perspective

    And we think we are peculiarly nostalgic in Britain, when we hum the Dambusters tune at football matches….

    I visited the Möhne Dam in 2013. I couldn't resist humming the Dambusters theme. :flushed:
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Jamaica is a case in point. It keeps electing leaders, on both political sides, who state they want to become a republic and plan to take action, and polling supports them apparently, yet they still have not gotten around to it. I can only presume they have no urgency and are waiting for a epochal moment.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    edited May 2022

    Starmer safe as houses if the bad law project thinks this, get your money on the opposite.

    Third, although I need to know more about the facts, I really wouldn't want to be placing a bet that Starmer hasn't broken the law. I think this is a serious matter for him and for Labour.

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1523228302101876737?s=20&t=80E_egVfLBnduVGe_SomPQ

    I have just learned that the student who first busted Starmer was James Delingpole of Breitbart's son Ivo.

    This has been a fantastic effort by a series of ordinary Joes to discredit one of the "grew up on Easy Street" metropolitan elite, as detested by Johnson and Co.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    Scott_xP said:
    The sun hasn't set a line yet?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    In the weird world of British politics, Conservatives are shitting the bed over the fact that the Labour leader has said he might resign.

    There's just the faintest chance here that this is going to end up benefiting Labour.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited May 2022

    Starmer safe as houses if the bad law project thinks this, get your money on the opposite.

    Third, although I need to know more about the facts, I really wouldn't want to be placing a bet that Starmer hasn't broken the law. I think this is a serious matter for him and for Labour.

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1523228302101876737?s=20&t=80E_egVfLBnduVGe_SomPQ

    The thing that most gives me pause for doubt about Starmer's pledge is that the action was (allegedly) masterminded by Peter Mandelson.

    Is Mandelson devious enough to set Keir up on a suicide mission ?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't like discussing HMQ's death. It feels inappropriate.

    However, I suspect that after she does die an awful lot of muck is going to come to the surface.

    If Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and the rest of it is what's at the surface while she's alive, just what muck could be hidden?
    Moot point. The thing keeping any putative muck from surfacing is not Betty or even her behalf. It's the institution. That doesn't go away after she breathes her last, and so this idea that the floodgates will suddenly open requires a little more explanation to be plausible. I'm not buying it personally.
    Indeed, Charles is effectively Prince Regent and in reality Head of State now in all but name, certainly in terms of performing most of the day to day functions of the Monarch
    I'll bet someone out there is saying the key moment was when Her Majesty made clear Camilla would become Queen (something some people get weirdly upset about), that it must have shown Charles was not running the operation.
    But by definition it won't be her decision. She only wanted it to happen. Can't order it.
    Sure, but it's something we already knew Charles wanted, and he got his mum to release a statement saying she agreed to boost the idea, and she's barely been seen out and about since - conspiracy theory territory.
    Good heavens. I had no idea people thought that way - and still less that the Duke of R even bothered to go to those lengths for fear of them.
    I'm only speculating - there's no conspiracy theory so dumb that someone won't believe it. And some people really hate Camilla so will believe anything.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,758
    tlg86 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    Remind me of the origins of the volkswagen name and marque?
    Next: Rheinmettal Krupps demands that Kyiv sits down to negotiate, and I G Farben calls for “free exports of gas”
    Germany is so basket case that nutter Mutti Merkels mob are popular again after like 3 months of opposition
    Germany is having an Astonishingly Bad War. Any sense of moral leadership that they had under Merkel - which was increasingly threadbare - has been cast to the winds. Terrible, tone-deaf weirdness day after day

    I think their guilt complex about WW2, esp with regard to Russia, goes so deep they cannot see straight. Russia is in a sense the mirror image, also obsessed with WW2 but from the opposite perspective

    And we think we are peculiarly nostalgic in Britain, when we hum the Dambusters tune at football matches….

    I visited the Möhne Dam in 2013. I couldn't resist humming the Dambusters theme. :flushed:
    Was it a Barnestorming performance?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    Sandpit said:

    EPG said:

    Nato is not going to be putting boots on the ground in Siberia or nuking Moscow. So of course the war is going to end with an agreement acceptable to Russia, at which point the question becomes whether several years of war will improve the tenor of that agreement.

    Russia's authoritarian leadership will accept an agreement when they believe that is a better alternative to them than continuing to fight a war. This is why it is right to do everything we can to support Ukraine, so that the cost of fighting the war is as high as possible for Russia, and so the agreement will be as favourable to Ukraine as possible.

    Hopefully this will mean a Ukraine completely free of Russian occupation, where the payoff for Russia's authoritarian leadership is an end to the destruction of their armed forces and a chance to re-establish the domestic safety of the regime. This is likely going to require a lot more in the way of destroyed Russian tanks, but hopefully the additional weaponry being supplied to Ukraine will accelerate this process.
    75 days in, and we are a third of the way through the Russian tanks. Another 75 days at the same rate of attrition, and there will barely be a Russian land army left to fight.

    Keep the weapons flowing from the West, along with the training to use them.

    Jack Detsch
    @JackDetsch
    ·
    2h
    Russia has only gained a handful of miles in Donbas because of four factors: senior US defense official

    1) 🇷🇺 won't advance ahead of artillery fires
    2) 🇷🇺 stuck on paved roads because of spring mud
    3) 🇷🇺 hasn't fixed logistics in Donbas
    4) Some 🇷🇺 troops aren't following orders

    https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1523690039657779200
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,723

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    Farooq said:

    I don't suppose there's any hope of getting rid of both Boris and Starmer, is there?

    There is hope.
    Personally I don't want Starmer to go in his current state of being innocent. He's done a really good job of dragging Labour back to somewhere sensible. If I knew he'd be replaced with someone of the same instincts and at least as capable, I wouldn't mind. But I fear for our country if it goes back to 2019.
    I'm as near 100% certain as I can be that Labour won't go back. The opposite. Forward with fresh propulsion.

    We've tasted bitter defeat. And by contrast we've smelled the sweet scent of victory drifting across the tulip fields.

    That addresses the instincts side, but not the capability side. That is very much up in the air.

    Not that I agree with you about the no backsliding.
    I really rate Rachel Reeves. Very impressive background and she has been great in Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Reeves

    Lisa Nandy not so sure: doesn't particularly inspire tbh. Yvette Cooper is good but yesterday's person really. I guess Wes Streeting is okay but suffers from being a man.

    Rachel's the one for the top spot imho.
    I will be "pleased" when she fails to become PM
    It is genuinely disturbing how many supposed left-wingers want the Tories to win elections in perpetuity.
    I find it amusing. Just about everything BJO posts makes me laugh out loud. 🤭
    Reeves was asked a couple of weeks ago if she was a Socialist. She said she was a Social Democrat she was asked if she wanted Corbyn to win in 2019 said she was pleased he wasnt PM

    She has said in the past Labour shouldnt be on the side of benefit claimants and abstained on Osborne austerity.

    She has no place leading a Democratic Socialist Party

    She is a female version of Starmer, Wooden presentation, ultra remainer easily rattled no charisma totally unlikeable.

    RRWNBPM

    Labour needs someone who can inspire its not her.

    Of the 3 likely contenders Nandy is the only one who i would vote for at a GE
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    Remind me of the origins of the volkswagen name and marque?
    Next: Rheinmettal Krupps demands that Kyiv sits down to negotiate, and I G Farben calls for “free exports of gas”
    Rheinmetall AG and Krupp were different companies entirely ...
    Never interrupt an ill informed rant.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    ...
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,263

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Nato is not going to be putting boots on the ground in Siberia or nuking Moscow. So of course the war is going to end with an agreement acceptable to Russia, at which point the question becomes whether several years of war will improve the tenor of that agreement.

    Think you mean, agreement that Russia is forced to accept. Whether they find it "acceptable"or not.

    Unless I'm missing something, Biden administration appears committed to restoration of full Ukrainian sovereignty over whats Ukraine de jure?

    Ukraine could end up settling on slightly less. But NOT because of US pressure.

    Just one fool's opinion - mine!
    I am a fool too but I still think yours is a more sensible line of thought than hoping for an actuarial or shenanigan-based reshuffle in Moscow that delivers a deus ex machina Western-style liberal boss. Of course we think the war is wrong, but people in power in Russia don't. Plus our own leaders could get replaced Trump or Le Pen-style.
    My guess is that Biden is NOT basing his policy re (and vs) Putin on assumption he OR another Democrat will be re-elected on 2024. Rather, on the opposite possibility.

    Thus NOT gonna be inclined to just kick the can down the road.

    Instead, stomp on it & put in recycling bin of history.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Farooq said:

    In the weird world of British politics, Conservatives are shitting the bed over the fact that the Labour leader has said he might resign.

    There's just the faintest chance here that this is going to end up benefiting Labour.

    Certainly a pretty transparent attempt to be able to dismiss the outcome if he is not fined.

    Not that I am very trusting of the British Police as an institution in behaviour or competence.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Sandpit said:

    EPG said:

    Nato is not going to be putting boots on the ground in Siberia or nuking Moscow. So of course the war is going to end with an agreement acceptable to Russia, at which point the question becomes whether several years of war will improve the tenor of that agreement.

    Russia's authoritarian leadership will accept an agreement when they believe that is a better alternative to them than continuing to fight a war. This is why it is right to do everything we can to support Ukraine, so that the cost of fighting the war is as high as possible for Russia, and so the agreement will be as favourable to Ukraine as possible.

    Hopefully this will mean a Ukraine completely free of Russian occupation, where the payoff for Russia's authoritarian leadership is an end to the destruction of their armed forces and a chance to re-establish the domestic safety of the regime. This is likely going to require a lot more in the way of destroyed Russian tanks, but hopefully the additional weaponry being supplied to Ukraine will accelerate this process.
    75 days in, and we are a third of the way through the Russian tanks. Another 75 days at the same rate of attrition, and there will barely be a Russian land army left to fight.

    Keep the weapons flowing from the West, along with the training to use them.
    I think it's really significant that the Russians retreated completely from the north. The expectation from many analysts at the time was that the Russians would dig in, defend entrenched positions, and continue to pound cities, including Kyiv, while moving the focus to the Donbas, but the Russians clearly concluded that they weren't able to do that, and we've seen around Kharkiv that they have been pushed back and the shelling of Kharkiv much reduced.

    This makes me think that a stalemate is unlikely
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089
    Taz said:
    There is a genuine issue here for Labour.

    If Starmer emerges from this unscarred, the Mail and the Sun will have been made to look silly, and they will hate him for ever more.

    Now if the price of not being hated by the Mail and the Sun is your leader's head on a platter, that's not a price worth paying (is it?), but it's a definite problem.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    edited May 2022

    Carnyx said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    In which case you have singlehandedly destroyed the glorious UK (mostly English) constitution. They have no right to be otherwise; they are absolute menaces if they are not figureheads.

    You are confusing policy and executive action with the conduct and work of a monarch in office.

    Queen Elizabeth II has always served the interests of the UK and has done so with a level of decorum and diplomacy that has commanded respect and admiration throughout the world. She, and thus the UK, has become more influential as a result. But she isn't making up policy on the hoof - she's acting in our interests and on our behalf.

    That is a good thing.
    It is a shame she is nearly dead then and that her son has a track record of voicing his opinions (usually on architecture TBF), but there is nothing constraining him from acting as he pleases.

    She made a choice, he can as well and it may not be as pleasant a choice. That is the weakness of the system.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    Sandpit said:

    EPG said:

    Nato is not going to be putting boots on the ground in Siberia or nuking Moscow. So of course the war is going to end with an agreement acceptable to Russia, at which point the question becomes whether several years of war will improve the tenor of that agreement.

    Russia's authoritarian leadership will accept an agreement when they believe that is a better alternative to them than continuing to fight a war. This is why it is right to do everything we can to support Ukraine, so that the cost of fighting the war is as high as possible for Russia, and so the agreement will be as favourable to Ukraine as possible.

    Hopefully this will mean a Ukraine completely free of Russian occupation, where the payoff for Russia's authoritarian leadership is an end to the destruction of their armed forces and a chance to re-establish the domestic safety of the regime. This is likely going to require a lot more in the way of destroyed Russian tanks, but hopefully the additional weaponry being supplied to Ukraine will accelerate this process.
    75 days in, and we are a third of the way through the Russian tanks. Another 75 days at the same rate of attrition, and there will barely be a Russian land army left to fight.

    Keep the weapons flowing from the West, along with the training to use them.
    It's an optimistic scenario and one we should hope for. The pessimistic scenario is that advances into Crimea fail due to local resistance. That would really put the cat among the pigeons in the inevitable settlement.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,091

    Starmer safe as houses if the bad law project thinks this, get your money on the opposite.

    Third, although I need to know more about the facts, I really wouldn't want to be placing a bet that Starmer hasn't broken the law. I think this is a serious matter for him and for Labour.

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1523228302101876737?s=20&t=80E_egVfLBnduVGe_SomPQ

    I didn't realise that Jolyon had raised more than £4m.

    https://labourpainsblog.com/2022/05/09/good-law-project-fantasies-and-little-stupid-jokes/
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 4,534
    edited May 2022
    When the Daily Mail war gamed their Beergate campaign they made one very big mistake .

    They assumed that all politicians are the same and would do anything to remain in power, and never did they factor in Starmer willing to resign if he got a FPN and saying this before the conclusion of the investigation.

    Starmer might get a FPN but his actions today insulate the Labour party and the Tory brand like a rotting fish stinks more with each passing day as Johnson remains in office .

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    edited May 2022
    Cicero said:

    As the UK disappears to contemplate its own political navel once more, the rest of the planet wonders when London is going to get serious. Personally, from a pretty neutral perspective, I see the attack on Starmer as a cynical smear, and the response he has made a) calls their bluff and b) puts the heat back on Bojo.

    Meanwhile away from clownland: the Putin speech may have seemed a whole load of nothing, but this perhaps reveals more than intended. Conscription papers have certainly been going out, even though no announcement has been made. UK based Russian schoolboys, for example, are definitely being called up. The regime has to find a way of getting more troops into the field, and this is the only realistic thing they can do. On the other hand any official announcement could trigger the kind of protests that knock the Putinists out, so clearly they may be trying to do this stealthily. A big question as to whether this works and indicates that the regime really is under serious pressure and possibly divided. The speech the dictator ended up making was possibly the result of being designed by a commitee that is sharply at odds.

    The Russians are also going all in now in the Donbas, before the growing advantage Ukraine has in kit becomes decisive. The next two weeks are critical.

    Here in Estonia, there are now nearly 40,000 refugees from Ukraine, There is really very little room left and it does make the UK response look pretty pathetic. Likewise the Estonians are donating money and equipment on a scale that is truly humbling. Support for the PM has rocketed and there is pride that she has had such a high profile across the world. Estonian support for Ukraine is not hedged in any way, it is total. I may add that this applies to Latvia, Lithuania and Poland too. In Finland support for joining NATO is now overwhelming.

    Interesting numbers about Russian emigration. It now seems that over 2 million Russians have left since February 24th. Needless to say these are the brightest and the best (and most mobile). With things the way they are, it is hard to when, if ever these people ever go back. There are certainly as many RUS registered vehicles in Tallinn now as UA ones. I guess the twenty first century equivalent of princes driving taxis in Paris after the Revolution, will be Russian data scientists becoming accountants in Dubai.

    Your appalled openers lamenting the fact that anyone in the world could be paying attention to anything other than what's going on in your particular patch seem somewhat unnecessary. Might I suggest you simply say what you want to say instead?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Jamaica is a case in point. It keeps electing leaders, on both political sides, who state they want to become a republic and plan to take action, and polling supports them apparently, yet they still have not gotten around to it. I can only presume they have no urgency and are waiting for a epochal moment.
    10 years ago 60% of Jamaicans supported keeping the Queen and last year Republicanism was still only at 55%. And then you have this:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-13952592.amp

    It's not an open and shut case.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    edited May 2022
    Taz said:
    It would be so unfair for Johnson if in trying to bring down Starmer, Johnson's tabloid goons inadvertently bring down Bozza.

    It took a painfully slow four days coming but I don't think Johnson's media shills expected this. They are crying foul and seem very upset.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Sandpit said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    I never swear on here, but fuck him, fuck his mother, and fuck the horse on which he rode in.

    If Germany wants to lead the EU, they need to put on their big boys’ pants and take out the enemy.
    Have you thought of signing up?
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    kle4 said:

    Heathener said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    We have a part time monarch.

    Not for very long though.
    Charles should be appointed Regent if she is no longer capable. Only breaking her coronation vow in a very specific and limited way.
    Or just scrap the monarchy.

    I think she's been amazing and I have great respect for her, despite some mistakes, but the institution is past its sell by date.
    I agree with you that the monarchy needs to go, but the issue is what to do with the powers vested in the Monarch that they simply do not use?

    We would finally need a written constitution. Are you really going to leave that in the hands of someone like Boris?
    Prerogative powers are already largely in the hands of someone very like Boris - Boris.

    Codification of our constitution is one of those topics that seems to me to be potentially a good or bad idea, but generally when brought up it is regarding a problem codification would not resolve (like the idea it automatically makes things clearer, as though codified systems do not have plenty of constitutional ambiguity).
    The Queen has a heck of a lot of powers that she can exercise if she so chooses

    And there is no one who can stop her.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited May 2022

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587

    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    Farooq said:

    I don't suppose there's any hope of getting rid of both Boris and Starmer, is there?

    There is hope.
    Personally I don't want Starmer to go in his current state of being innocent. He's done a really good job of dragging Labour back to somewhere sensible. If I knew he'd be replaced with someone of the same instincts and at least as capable, I wouldn't mind. But I fear for our country if it goes back to 2019.
    I'm as near 100% certain as I can be that Labour won't go back. The opposite. Forward with fresh propulsion.

    We've tasted bitter defeat. And by contrast we've smelled the sweet scent of victory drifting across the tulip fields.

    That addresses the instincts side, but not the capability side. That is very much up in the air.

    Not that I agree with you about the no backsliding.
    I really rate Rachel Reeves. Very impressive background and she has been great in Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Reeves

    Lisa Nandy not so sure: doesn't particularly inspire tbh. Yvette Cooper is good but yesterday's person really. I guess Wes Streeting is okay but suffers from being a man.

    Rachel's the one for the top spot imho.
    I will be "pleased" when she fails to become PM
    It is genuinely disturbing how many supposed left-wingers want the Tories to win elections in perpetuity.
    I find it amusing. Just about everything BJO posts makes me laugh out loud. 🤭
    Reeves was asked a couple of weeks ago if she was a Socialist. She said she was a Social Democrat she was asked if she wanted Corbyn to win in 2019 said she was pleased he wasnt PM

    She has said in the past Labour shouldnt be on the side of benefit claimants and abstained on Osborne austerity.

    She has no place leading a Democratic Socialist Party

    She is a female version of Starmer, Wooden presentation, ultra remainer easily rattled no charisma totally unlikeable.

    RRWNBPM

    Labour needs someone who can inspire its not her.

    Of the 3 likely contenders Nandy is the only one who i would vote for at a GE
    Away with you, you RedWall Johnsonian Tory!
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 15,243
    All this guff about the evil machinations of Sir Keir is based on notion that, by contrast, Boris is a choir boy caught sipping a bit of communion wine as a lark?

    BUT hasn't there been a wee bit too much water, wine and wallpaper under, over & around the bridge for that?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Harry Cole, Dan Hodges, JHB, Lord Moylan
    Am I missing anyone else having a meltdown on Twitter? Because it's a lot of fun and I don't want to miss ANY of it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,263

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    Remind me of the origins of the volkswagen name and marque?
    Next: Rheinmettal Krupps demands that Kyiv sits down to negotiate, and I G Farben calls for “free exports of gas”
    Rheinmetall AG and Krupp were different companies entirely ...
    Never interrupt an ill informed rant.

    “1990 Rheinmetall GmbH acquires a 60-percent-share of MaK System GmbH of Kiel, a unit of Fried. Krupp GmbH”

    https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/company/corporate_history/1950_1998/index.php
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2022
    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    I never swear on here, but fuck him, fuck his mother, and fuck the horse on which he rode in.

    If Germany wants to lead the EU, they need to put on their big boys’ pants and take out the enemy.
    Have you thought of signing up?
    To fight the CEO of Volkswagen? ;)

    I’m not the fighting type, unless they’re looking for pilots, but I’m happy with my financial support for the weapons needed by those who are. There’s half an NLAW out there somewhere with my name on it!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,841
    Emporers new clothes moment in integritygate.
    'I'm not like the other politicians, I'm honorable innit'
    'You're talking about what you'll do if you've broken the law mate'
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    I don't like discussing HMQ's death. It feels inappropriate.

    However, I suspect that after she does die an awful lot of muck is going to come to the surface.

    If Prince Charles, Prince Andrew and the rest of it is what's at the surface while she's alive, just what muck could be hidden?
    Moot point. The thing keeping any putative muck from surfacing is not Betty or even her behalf. It's the institution. That doesn't go away after she breathes her last, and so this idea that the floodgates will suddenly open requires a little more explanation to be plausible. I'm not buying it personally.
    Indeed, Charles is effectively Prince Regent and in reality Head of State now in all but name, certainly in terms of performing most of the day to day functions of the Monarch
    I'll bet someone out there is saying the key moment was when Her Majesty made clear Camilla would become Queen (something some people get weirdly upset about), that it must have shown Charles was not running the operation.
    But by definition it won't be her decision. She only wanted it to happen. Can't order it.
    Not even that - it was just recognising a basic fact of the monarchy - the wife of the king is the queen.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,089

    Taz said:
    It would be so unfair for Johnson if in trying to bring down Starmer, Johnson's tabloid goons inadvertently bring down Bozza.

    It took a painfully slow four days coming but I don't think Johnson's media shills expected this. They are crying foul and seem very upset.
    Oh dear.
    How sad.
    Never mind.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    Farooq said:

    Heathener said:

    Farooq said:

    I don't suppose there's any hope of getting rid of both Boris and Starmer, is there?

    There is hope.
    Personally I don't want Starmer to go in his current state of being innocent. He's done a really good job of dragging Labour back to somewhere sensible. If I knew he'd be replaced with someone of the same instincts and at least as capable, I wouldn't mind. But I fear for our country if it goes back to 2019.
    I'm as near 100% certain as I can be that Labour won't go back. The opposite. Forward with fresh propulsion.

    We've tasted bitter defeat. And by contrast we've smelled the sweet scent of victory drifting across the tulip fields.

    That addresses the instincts side, but not the capability side. That is very much up in the air.

    Not that I agree with you about the no backsliding.
    I really rate Rachel Reeves. Very impressive background and she has been great in Parliament. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Reeves

    Lisa Nandy not so sure: doesn't particularly inspire tbh. Yvette Cooper is good but yesterday's person really. I guess Wes Streeting is okay but suffers from being a man.

    Rachel's the one for the top spot imho.
    I will be "pleased" when she fails to become PM
    It is genuinely disturbing how many supposed left-wingers want the Tories to win elections in perpetuity.
    BJO was eulogising yesterday on how much more Johnsonian Conservatives had enhanced his life and locality in two years than the Labour Party had in his lifetime. Fair enough, but left winger? Trojan Horse more like!
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    I'm fully supportive of the monarchy as an institution. I just think many of those places will drift away.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    No, I would say Oz would be one of the last to leave, same with Canada and New Zealand. The non white British origin majority would go well before white majority of British Isles origin Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Those are the type of ex British Empire countries which have already become Republics.

    Australia of course voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Russian finance minister: GDP could fall 12% this year, due to sanctions.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/09/ftse-100-markets-live-news-russia-energy-mccolls/
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    Remind me of the origins of the volkswagen name and marque?
    Next: Rheinmettal Krupps demands that Kyiv sits down to negotiate, and I G Farben calls for “free exports of gas”
    Germany is so basket case that nutter Mutti Merkels mob are popular again after like 3 months of opposition
    Germany is having an Astonishingly Bad War. Any sense of moral leadership that they had under Merkel - which was increasingly threadbare - has been cast to the winds. Terrible, tone-deaf weirdness day after day

    I think their guilt complex about WW2, esp with regard to Russia, goes so deep they cannot see straight. Russia is in a sense the mirror image, also obsessed with WW2 but from the opposite perspective

    And we think we are peculiarly nostalgic in Britain, when we hum the Dambusters tune at football matches….

    I think Germany have had worse wars than this one...
    When did they last have a better one?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587

    Starmer safe as houses if the bad law project thinks this, get your money on the opposite.

    Third, although I need to know more about the facts, I really wouldn't want to be placing a bet that Starmer hasn't broken the law. I think this is a serious matter for him and for Labour.

    https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1523228302101876737?s=20&t=80E_egVfLBnduVGe_SomPQ

    The thing that most gives me pause for doubt about Starmer's pledge is that the action was (allegedly) masterminded by Peter Mandelson.

    Is Mandelson devious enough to set Keir up on a suicide mission ?
    Starmer was a dead man walking anyway. He has made a quite impressive fist of a bad deal.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    HYUFD said:

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
    It's always struck me as interesting that republicans think the best way to advance their arguments is to be extremely rude about one of the most widely respected and admired people on the planet.

    It might explain why they never get anywhere, I suppose.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 3,089
    Farooq said:

    Harry Cole, Dan Hodges, JHB, Lord Moylan
    Am I missing anyone else having a meltdown on Twitter? Because it's a lot of fun and I don't want to miss ANY of it.

    I almost wish I hadn't muted Hodges.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Sandpit said:

    Roger said:

    Sandpit said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    I never swear on here, but fuck him, fuck his mother, and fuck the horse on which he rode in.

    If Germany wants to lead the EU, they need to put on their big boys’ pants and take out the enemy.
    Have you thought of signing up?
    To fight the CEO of Volkswagen? ;)

    I’m not the fighting type, unless they’re looking for pilots, but I’m happy with my financial support for the weapons needed by those who are. There’s half an NLAW out there somewhere with my name on it!
    In weapon naming news, a captured Russian T-80 tank has been named Fury by the Ukrainian army. No word on whether this is after the British boxing champion, or simply the sentiment.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    HYUFD said:

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
    Unelected Head of State!
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    Americans seem perfectly capable of being small-R republican without being, as you guys put it, autistic.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    If one of you has reached State Pension age

    If only one of you has reached State Pension age, you and your partner can still claim Universal Credit as a couple.

    Your Universal Credit claim will stop when you both reach State Pension age.

    https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/eligibility

    I bet you don't know what your housekeeper pays for your milk, either.

    But brave of you to go mano a mano with a 5' 3" 96 y.o. woman.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    HYUFD said:

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
    Take back control from our unelected rulers.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    I don't feel that strongly about it but am a monarchist and have consistently said so on here.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    Carnyx said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    Remind me of the origins of the volkswagen name and marque?
    Next: Rheinmettal Krupps demands that Kyiv sits down to negotiate, and I G Farben calls for “free exports of gas”
    Rheinmetall AG and Krupp were different companies entirely ...
    Never interrupt an ill informed rant.
    That will make for very quiet comment threads.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.

    (And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037

    Emporers new clothes moment in integritygate.
    'I'm not like the other politicians, I'm honorable innit'
    'You're talking about what you'll do if you've broken the law mate'

    You ok buddy? Maybe you’ve been inflicted with Harry Colitus?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,587

    All this guff about the evil machinations of Sir Keir is based on notion that, by contrast, Boris is a choir boy caught sipping a bit of communion wine as a lark?

    BUT hasn't there been a wee bit too much water, wine and wallpaper under, over & around the £63m invisible garden bridge for that?

    Fixed it for you!

  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    HYUFD said:

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
    It's always struck me as interesting that republicans think the best way to advance their arguments is to be extremely rude about one of the most widely respected and admired people on the planet.

    It might explain why they never get anywhere, I suppose.
    Is that why Barbados became a republic just 6 months ago?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    Americans seem perfectly capable of being small-R republican without being, as you guys put it, autistic.
    Yes, their Presidents have been such a shining example to the world, look how much better Trump and Biden have been than HMQ!
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 14,912

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Volkswagen chief calls for settlement to end Ukraine war to help EU economy

    https://www.ft.com/content/f8c2482d-c7af-4d7e-87e7-87562194250b

    Remind me of the origins of the volkswagen name and marque?
    Next: Rheinmettal Krupps demands that Kyiv sits down to negotiate, and I G Farben calls for “free exports of gas”
    Germany is so basket case that nutter Mutti Merkels mob are popular again after like 3 months of opposition
    Germany is having an Astonishingly Bad War. Any sense of moral leadership that they had under Merkel - which was increasingly threadbare - has been cast to the winds. Terrible, tone-deaf weirdness day after day

    I think their guilt complex about WW2, esp with regard to Russia, goes so deep they cannot see straight. Russia is in a sense the mirror image, also obsessed with WW2 but from the opposite perspective

    And we think we are peculiarly nostalgic in Britain, when we hum the Dambusters tune at football matches….

    I think Germany have had worse wars than this one...
    When did they last have a better one?
    2003.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019
    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    Americans seem perfectly capable of being small-R republican without being, as you guys put it, autistic.
    But, they are also capable of admiring and respecting HMQ and the institution of monarchy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    I don't feel that strongly about it but am a monarchist and have consistently said so on here.
    Fair enough.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    You can certainly add me to the monarchist core
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    PB has gone ballistic! I usually read, assess and mentally log every comment, making suitable adjustments (if needed) to the standings of each poster on the key metrics of objectivity, judgement and ethics, but I'm going to have to let it go here. All get a pass.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    IshmaelZ said:

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    If one of you has reached State Pension age

    If only one of you has reached State Pension age, you and your partner can still claim Universal Credit as a couple.

    Your Universal Credit claim will stop when you both reach State Pension age.

    https://www.gov.uk/universal-credit/eligibility

    I bet you don't know what your housekeeper pays for your milk, either.

    But brave of you to go mano a mano with a 5' 3" 96 y.o. woman.
    If she doesn't want to get criticised she should get off the throne.

    My housekeeper? Bah, I've never had a housekeeper, I did have an au pair many years ago, which was a disappointment.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,929
    edited May 2022

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    Her Majesty is rightly prioritising the important stuff like the Derby and Royal Ascot, not reading out another list of Boris's campaign points like in 2019 when he knew he was about to call another election.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    Carnyx said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    In which case you have singlehandedly destroyed the glorious UK (mostly English) constitution. They have no right to be otherwise; they are absolute menaces if they are not figureheads.

    You are confusing policy and executive action with the conduct and work of a monarch in office.

    Queen Elizabeth II has always served the interests of the UK and has done so with a level of decorum and diplomacy that has commanded respect and admiration throughout the world. She, and thus the UK, has become more influential as a result. But she isn't making up policy on the hoof - she's acting in our interests and on our behalf.

    That is a good thing.
    It is a shame she is nearly dead then and that her son has a track record of voicing his opinions (usually on architecture TBF), but there is nothing constraining him from acting as he pleases.

    She made a choice, he can as well and it may not be as pleasant a choice. That is the weakness of the system.
    Charming.

    I hope people are equally generous to you at your funeral.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    Americans seem perfectly capable of being small-R republican without being, as you guys put it, autistic.
    But, they are also capable of admiring and respecting HMQ and the institution of monarchy.
    Your autism objection was to people who don't loudly argue in favour of monarchy.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited May 2022

    HYUFD said:

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
    It's always struck me as interesting that republicans think the best way to advance their arguments is to be extremely rude about one of the most widely respected and admired people on the planet.

    It might explain why they never get anywhere, I suppose.
    TSE is a pro austerity, anti Brexit, anti monarchy, liberal elitist. No surprise he does not really care what the masses think!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    Americans seem perfectly capable of being small-R republican without being, as you guys put it, autistic.
    But, they are also capable of admiring and respecting HMQ and the institution of monarchy.
    They became a republic in 1783.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    No, I would say Oz would be one of the last to leave, same with Canada and New Zealand. The non white British origin majority would go well before white majority of British Isles origin Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Those are the type of ex British Empire countries which have already become Republics.

    Australia of course voted 55% to keep the monarchy in 1999
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/no-sense-of-momentum-poll-finds-drop-in-support-for-australia-becoming-a-republic-20210125-p56wpe.html
    I suspect there will be a bit of a run on the republic referendums when HM passes. If not then, when? There has long been a suspicion (correctly IMHO) that a lot of places have held off for the natural transition to self determination that ends when the Queen dies.

    In honest fact I suspect after 10 years of Charles the only one that will still be mulling it over will be Canada because they really don’t seem to give a fig about the whole arrangement and are generally OK with it. That said, pressure for change breeds pressure. I suspect there will be a domino effect. None of that will actually be Charles fault, nor is it really something to attribute fault to, it’s just the next page in history. In time, I suspect the UK will eventually abolish the monarchy, but I would say it’s got a good 100 years left to run at least.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 7,981
    edited May 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Heathener said:

    RobD said:

    Foxy said:

    We have a part time monarch.

    Not for very long though.
    Charles should be appointed Regent if she is no longer capable. Only breaking her coronation vow in a very specific and limited way.
    Or just scrap the monarchy.

    I think she's been amazing and I have great respect for her, despite some mistakes, but the institution is past its sell by date.
    I agree with you that the monarchy needs to go, but the issue is what to do with the powers vested in the Monarch that they simply do not use?

    We would finally need a written constitution. Are you really going to leave that in the hands of someone like Boris?
    Ahem. It's already written. Just not codified.
    The Monarch is the head of the armed forces and has the power to dismiss the PM and Parliament. What does the "written" stuff say about who gets those powers if the Monarchy no longer exists? Who gets the ability to veto any law? Who becomes the land-holder of all the UK including the littoral areas? She cannot be prosecuted - who does that devolve to? Boris would love it! :D

    And so and so forth. There would be a lot of stuff that needs tidying up and I am sure that whoever is in power would try and slant it in their own favour or that of "their side". The thought of Boris running that particular sh*tshow should give pause for concern.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,929
    A car has crashed into the front garden of the Prime Minister’s £1.3 million London townhouse.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/09/car-ploughs-front-garden-boris-johnsons-13m-london-townhouse/ (£££)

    That is the one in Camberwell.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,069

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    Her Majesty is rightly prioritising the important stuff like the Derby and Royal Ascot, not reading out another list of Boris's campaign points when he knew he was about to call another election.
    Yes I am sure the last thing she wants to do is spout a lot of guff for the man who partied while she followed the rules.

    Watching the horses sounds a lot more fun.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    Farooq said:

    Harry Cole, Dan Hodges, JHB, Lord Moylan…

    … your Bullingdon Barnacle just took a hell of a beating ?

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.

    If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.

    She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
    It's always struck me as interesting that republicans think the best way to advance their arguments is to be extremely rude about one of the most widely respected and admired people on the planet.

    It might explain why they never get anywhere, I suppose.
    TSE is a pro austerity, anti Brexit, anti monarchy, liberal elitist. No surprise he does not really care what the masses think!
    All good proper conservatives are pro austerity, does sound money mean nothing to you?

    The problem with socialists like you is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    A car has crashed into the front garden of the Prime Minister’s £1.3 million London townhouse.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/09/car-ploughs-front-garden-boris-johnsons-13m-london-townhouse/ (£££)

    That is the one in Camberwell.

    There goes their no claims discount.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,019

    EPG said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.

    As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
    Americans seem perfectly capable of being small-R republican without being, as you guys put it, autistic.
    But, they are also capable of admiring and respecting HMQ and the institution of monarchy.
    They became a republic in 1783.
    Thanks Sunil. Appreciate that insight.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited May 2022

    A car has crashed into the front garden of the Prime Minister’s £1.3 million London townhouse.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/09/car-ploughs-front-garden-boris-johnsons-13m-london-townhouse/ (£££)

    That is the one in Camberwell.

    How Broke Boris going to be able to afford the extra tax on unused / unlet second homes he is supposed to be announcing tomorrow?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    tlg86 said:

    A car has crashed into the front garden of the Prime Minister’s £1.3 million London townhouse.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/09/car-ploughs-front-garden-boris-johnsons-13m-london-townhouse/ (£££)

    That is the one in Camberwell.

    There goes their no claims discount.
    This is why I've always had protected no claims discount.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 3,703
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.

    Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.

    Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.

    Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.

    Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
    Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?

    Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).

    Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
    Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:


    “Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”

    Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?

    For a second, I read that as the reggae Commonwealth.
This discussion has been closed.