Even the Brexitgraph doesn't like to be associated with an incompetent loser it seems. Rats and sinking ships
This isn't particularly new. There has been a steady stream of columnists attacking Johnson, particularly over failure to actually be a conservative for weeks now. Heath, Johnston, Timothy etc etc.
Of course the likelihood is if Johnson goes the Conservative Party will shift further right, especially on economics
Further right?
Truss for example is far more of a tax cutter and spending slasher than Johnson, Wallace is also more socially conservative than Johnson and voted against gay marriage for instance (even if he accepts it now).
Hunt and Wallace are also more pro life than Johnson. Patel is harder line on immigration than Johnson
These guys may talk a good game of slashing this and that, but try taking a look at what they do, and what they permit the CotE to do. A proper slasher would have resigned from the Cabinet over last week's bonanza.
"I'm not leaving until the bailiffs come". That was the latest email sent to me from a tenant. This is the third tenant this year I am evicting due to rent arrears.
In my entire landlord career of 20 years, I have never seen an environment turn so quickly and so badly – and that includes the financial crisis and pandemic. The amount of money owed in rental arrears is in the thousands of pounds and quickly rising. Supposedly good tenants are souring quickly and I am left wondering who I can trust."
That’s worrying, especially that this downturn doesn’t appear (yet!) to have high unemployment associated with it.
Is it a warning of unemployment to come, or is it a regulatory issue, that tenants have collectively realised they can get away for months without paying rent before they get evicted?
Markets including markets in loopholes tend to be efficient. If you want your theory to stand up you need to point to some recent, major, tenant friendly (ie UnConservative) change in the law. I don't know of any. I f it were a longer standing thing they'd have been doing it already.
Certainly in Scotland emergency provisions brought in for Covid made the payment of rent an optional extra for most, inevitably catapulting arrears into the stratosphere. Free lunches come to mind.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Some far left Scottish Nationalists like you but we don't care what you think.
In any case plenty of Presidents around the world went to posh schools and posh unis
Hey, if you think I'm far left, you'd better start worrying about your appeal to voters.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
What is it with your idea of Germany having a “grand global imperial past”?
The height of their European “empire” (not including the Hitler days) was smaller than Sweden’s empire and is basically Germany as now.
Their overseas empire was a blink of the eye and consisted of an area 5 million square kms smaller than Brazil, part of an actual grand global empire of Portugal and only 1m sq km bigger than little Belgium’s empire in the Congo.
Well I was meant to be getting my "Health MOT" this morning but the practice nurse is off sick. That's what happens when you hang around a load of ill people all day.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
If Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, and this is more represented in the Parliamentary party, then surely this points to Hunt and Wallace not Hunt and Truss (as it is purely the Parliamentary party which decides the final two)??
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
They seem to have called all the seats in Oz. Labor majority of three. Not sure how Gilmore is Labor with a 242 vote lead and 10% still to be counted, but there we go.
The politics has already moved on, Peter Dutton already held his first press conference as new Leader of the Opposition
"I'm not leaving until the bailiffs come". That was the latest email sent to me from a tenant. This is the third tenant this year I am evicting due to rent arrears.
In my entire landlord career of 20 years, I have never seen an environment turn so quickly and so badly – and that includes the financial crisis and pandemic. The amount of money owed in rental arrears is in the thousands of pounds and quickly rising. Supposedly good tenants are souring quickly and I am left wondering who I can trust."
That’s worrying, especially that this downturn doesn’t appear (yet!) to have high unemployment associated with it.
Is it a warning of unemployment to come, or is it a regulatory issue, that tenants have collectively realised they can get away for months without paying rent before they get evicted?
Markets including markets in loopholes tend to be efficient. If you want your theory to stand up you need to point to some recent, major, tenant friendly (ie UnConservative) change in the law. I don't know of any. I f it were a longer standing thing they'd have been doing it already.
Certainly in Scotland emergency provisions brought in for Covid made the payment of rent an optional extra for most, inevitably catapulting arrears into the stratosphere. Free lunches come to mind.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
Not particularly! And I certainly wasn't selected for poshness.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
What is it with your idea of Germany having a “grand global imperial past”?
The height of their European “empire” (not including the Hitler days) was smaller than Sweden’s empire and is basically Germany as now.
Their overseas empire was a blink of the eye and consisted of an area 5 million square kms smaller than Brazil, part of an actual grand global empire of Portugal and only 1m sq km bigger than little Belgium’s empire in the Congo.
They had a non European empire unlike Sweden and you can't exclude Hitler's Empire either given it at its peak included most of Europe
HY is always correct and never gets it wrong. And certainly wouldn't pompously insist he is right regardless of the evidence or the laughter. So in this jubilee week we can Prove for a Fact that there was no Danish empire. Remember the tale in our royal family's past?
King Harold, daughter of a Dane, direct blood descendent of King Cnut the Great - a Viking- who only a few decades earlier had directly ruled England as part of his Danish Empire after centuries of Viking rule. Harold who fights off the King of Norway - a Viking - only to then be defeated by William. Who was a direct descendant of Rollo the Viking who had conquered Normandy. Nor Man. North men. Vikings.
So yes. HY is right and there was never a Danish empire and certainly not one big enough to seed the English royal family, create English cities that still stand, name hundreds of places and provide words and grammatical rules to the language. And living in Thornaby-on-Tees as I did I was very clear that Thornaby wasn't founded as Thormod (a Viking)'s Farmstead. No sir.
Generally right, but I don't think Harold Godwinson was bisexual. Or changed from the gender identified at birth.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
I'm happy to leave well alone. In principle I am a republican because of my liberal views, but this is so low on any to do list it would never get done because in the words of Douglas Adams they are mostly harmless and I would add bring some joy to many. And I really quite like most of them. Even Andrew is a hoot.
I'm not that fussed either. But if there were a binary Ref, keep v not, I'd vote not. I just thought about it properly this morning and slightly surprised myself with that conclusion.
Same for me. If I'm asked, I'll vote to abolish. But I've got no great desire to be asked.
(Which, to be fair, was similar for much of the country on Brexit - I know people who voted leave because that, when asked, was their position, but had no great interest in being asked and were pretty content with the status quo; also know similar people on the remain side who voted remain for a quiet life rather than out of any conviction)
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Some far left Scottish Nationalists like you but we don't care what you think.
In any case plenty of Presidents around the world went to posh schools and posh unis
Hey, if you think I'm far left, you'd better start worrying about your appeal to voters.
I would not want the support of voters like you even if it was on offer, which it isn't. When have you ever voted Tory?
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Or Sweden
Denmark: we claim Greenland! HYUFD: not a real empire Italy: we claim a quarter of the Sahara desert! HYUFD: [places forehead on the floor]
Greeland is still part of the 3 kingdoms of Denmark, it is not really an ex colony
"I don't have a history of cheating on my wife," he panted, "because I'm still doing it literally right now. How can you have a history of something that's still happening?"
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Pritis 24 election manifesto will be led by the restoration of the death penalty, not just for cop killers but also random foxes.
Allowing fox-hunting seems morally unsound to me on two grounds, but why should I be surprised at anything this administration does?
a) Always look for any upper class/lower class differential in any 'morality'-driven regulation. Cf. divorce under the C of E of old (Scotland was a bit more sensible, not sure about Wales). In this case fox hunting is definitely toff territory, largely upper class/snobbish activity (albeit with quite a few prole followers) - but why allow nobby blood sports when banning working class ones such as cock fighting and bull baiting?
b) foxes obv don't like being hunted*, but cockerels are only too happy to have a scrap, like squaddies of different regiments in an Aldershot pub, so who's being unkind to whom?
*On empirical grounds. They run away. Cf. M. S. Dawkins's 1970s/1980s research on hens, which showed that they preferred not to live in a battery cage but in the more old fashioned alternative, simply by giving them the option.
There is plenty of treatment of animals which people disagree over. Look at the cracking social media campaign that VFC is conducting right now.
One of the criteria to be applied to any activity, from riding ponies to foxhunting to keeping goldfish to having a domestic dog to having a dairy herd to zapping a fly should be - is it cruel.
And it was determined that foxhunting was not cruel.
That said, now is not the time to have a vote to bring back foxhunting. Not least because it would be defeated. Badly.
Well said. People who think fox hunting was cruel never bothered to read the burns report because they were far too consumed by their prejudice and general hatred of genuinely rural people that don't share their plastic view of the countryside.
Quality erasure of "genuinely rural people" who think fox hunting is a bag of shite.
Or are you only genuinely rural if you think fox hunting is good?
The genuinely rural realise that death and suffering among foxes has rocketed since the hunting act because people used to want there to be some foxes. Now they don't farmers and pheasant shoots splat them with nightsights by the dozen. The wounded ones die of gangrene because they don't lick their wounds (only tamed canids do)
I am sure a countryman like you knows all that. But hey, increased animal suffering Vs spiting the toffs...
Yes, famously farmers upon seeing a fox would think "I could shoot this fucker worrying my livestock right now but I better leave it around for some wankers to chase in 3 months time".
It's more complicated than that. First off the hunt spends a lot of time visiting said farmer (who might easily hunt or have a hunting daughter/family himself) for precisely these reasons. To ensure that there is understanding and agreement (areas to avoid, making good afterwards, etc). Farmers who are anti-hunting are left alone and no one goes near their land.
And of course there are people who live in the countryside who are anti-hunting. Not everyone outside the cities and suburbs supports hunting, and that's fine. Plenty do, however.
But the bigger point is more important, and you make it yourself - you accept that one way or another the fox gets it. Either by being shot (good luck with that but of course it happens) or snaring or gassing or being hunted by hounds.
And funnily enough of all of those methods the only one AFAIA that has had a whole enquiry dedicated to it is the last, hunting by hounds, and that enquiry determined that such activity was not cruel.
The enquiry determined there was not enough evidence to say whether it was cruel or not. That is a different thing.
"In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."[7]"
wiki
One does have to admit, that 'question' and 'no' are ambiguous.
We were not implying ...? Hunting is not cruel ...?
I'd normally go higher up in the sentence, and assume that 'no' wa sin response to 'people ask [us]'
I think it is legitimate to say that hunting is not cruel and that hunting is not not cruel.
For Sunday I think I'll publish a piece reminding you that the Conservative Party uses a form of quasi AV to elect their party leader.
Jeez, not this again. It’s nothing like AV.
No numbers used, just ticks in boxes. Multiple but separate rounds of voting, with the ability to vote for any candidate in any round.
Multiple rounds of voting which sees the lowest ranked candidate eliminated until we have a final two, winner is the person who gets over 50%.
AV has one round of voting, multiple rounds of counting, and the same electorate for each round. None of which are present in the Tory leadership election.
HY is always correct and never gets it wrong. And certainly wouldn't pompously insist he is right regardless of the evidence or the laughter. So in this jubilee week we can Prove for a Fact that there was no Danish empire. Remember the tale in our royal family's past?
King Harold, daughter of a Dane, direct blood descendent of King Cnut the Great - a Viking- who only a few decades earlier had directly ruled England as part of his Danish Empire after centuries of Viking rule. Harold who fights off the King of Norway - a Viking - only to then be defeated by William. Who was a direct descendant of Rollo the Viking who had conquered Normandy. Nor Man. North men. Vikings.
So yes. HY is right and there was never a Danish empire and certainly not one big enough to seed the English royal family, create English cities that still stand, name hundreds of places and provide words and grammatical rules to the language. And living in Thornaby-on-Tees as I did I was very clear that Thornaby wasn't founded as Thormod (a Viking)'s Farmstead. No sir.
Totally off-topic, but I was a big fan of King Rollo as a kid
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
And what on earth has that got to do with what I said? Your response had no relevance to the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that as usual you are in awe of the people at the top of the hierarchy. All I care about is his views are largely in accordance with the party and liberal philosophy. I am not in awe of our lord's and masters.
You were suggesting most LDs were republicans and disagreed with Davey, I was showing on the contrary most LD voters like Davey support our constitutional monarchy
No I wasn't. It is amazing how you can misread posts. Your ability to misunderstand stuff is truly awesome.
I was simply pointing out that we LDs are not in awe of our betters like you, i.e. Davey isn't god. We all think for ourselves and are not guided by our supreme leader.
You changed tack to that but your original statement was clearly suggesting LD voters were anti monarchy and Davey could not dictate LD policy over that
No it wasn't you Pillock. How can you so obviously misunderstand just 14 words. I'm not even anti and had no idea what LD voters views were.
You really are mad.
You made that comment specifically because you assumed LD voters disagreed with Davey's support for the constitutional monarchy, as the polling evidence I produced showed you you were wrong!
I didn't. At no time did I do so. I don't even believe it. My comment was entirely about your awe of people in charge.
For Sunday I think I'll publish a piece reminding you that the Conservative Party uses a form of quasi AV to elect their party leader.
Jeez, not this again. It’s nothing like AV.
No numbers used, just ticks in boxes. Multiple but separate rounds of voting, with the ability to vote for any candidate in any round.
Multiple rounds of voting which sees the lowest ranked candidate eliminated until we have a final two, winner is the person who gets over 50%.
AV has one round of voting, multiple rounds of counting, and the same electorate for each round. None of which are present in the Tory leadership election.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
I'm happy to leave well alone. In principle I am a republican because of my liberal views, but this is so low on any to do list it would never get done because in the words of Douglas Adams they are mostly harmless and I would add bring some joy to many. And I really quite like most of them. Even Andrew is a hoot.
I'm not that fussed either. But if there were a binary Ref, keep v not, I'd vote not. I just thought about it properly this morning and slightly surprised myself with that conclusion.
Same for me. If I'm asked, I'll vote to abolish. But I've got no great desire to be asked.
(Which, to be fair, was similar for much of the country on Brexit - I know people who voted leave because that, when asked, was their position, but had no great interest in being asked and were pretty content with the status quo; also know similar people on the remain side who voted remain for a quiet life rather than out of any conviction)
I ended up as a narrow (reluctant) remainer but flirted with voting leave until I admitted to myself that the main reason for doing so would be to spite Cameron for granting the poxy referendum in the first place.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Some far left Scottish Nationalists like you but we don't care what you think.
In any case plenty of Presidents around the world went to posh schools and posh unis
Hey, if you think I'm far left, you'd better start worrying about your appeal to voters.
I would not want the support of voters like you even if it was on offer, which it isn't. When have you ever voted Tory?
"We don't need riffraff like you voting for us," he said, brushing his nails with a handkerchief. "Do you even have a man who dresses you?"
HY is always correct and never gets it wrong. And certainly wouldn't pompously insist he is right regardless of the evidence or the laughter. So in this jubilee week we can Prove for a Fact that there was no Danish empire. Remember the tale in our royal family's past?
King Harold, daughter of a Dane, direct blood descendent of King Cnut the Great - a Viking- who only a few decades earlier had directly ruled England as part of his Danish Empire after centuries of Viking rule. Harold who fights off the King of Norway - a Viking - only to then be defeated by William. Who was a direct descendant of Rollo the Viking who had conquered Normandy. Nor Man. North men. Vikings.
So yes. HY is right and there was never a Danish empire and certainly not one big enough to seed the English royal family, create English cities that still stand, name hundreds of places and provide words and grammatical rules to the language. And living in Thornaby-on-Tees as I did I was very clear that Thornaby wasn't founded as Thormod (a Viking)'s Farmstead. No sir.
I, for one, shall always ignore that the Danes invaded my county in their empire building and killed our other patron saint and that my city bears their influence in street names like Pottergate and Westlegate. Im glad they stayed home and never went empire building
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
What is it with your idea of Germany having a “grand global imperial past”?
The height of their European “empire” (not including the Hitler days) was smaller than Sweden’s empire and is basically Germany as now.
Their overseas empire was a blink of the eye and consisted of an area 5 million square kms smaller than Brazil, part of an actual grand global empire of Portugal and only 1m sq km bigger than little Belgium’s empire in the Congo.
In the 19th Century Germany was quite a bit bigger than it is currently..
For Sunday I think I'll publish a piece reminding you that the Conservative Party uses a form of quasi AV to elect their party leader.
Jeez, not this again. It’s nothing like AV.
No numbers used, just ticks in boxes. Multiple but separate rounds of voting, with the ability to vote for any candidate in any round.
Multiple rounds of voting which sees the lowest ranked candidate eliminated until we have a final two, winner is the person who gets over 50%.
AV has one round of voting, multiple rounds of counting, and the same electorate for each round. None of which are present in the Tory leadership election.
That's why I said quasi AV.
I know what you said, but what you meant was it’s nothing like AV at all.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
And what on earth has that got to do with what I said? Your response had no relevance to the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that as usual you are in awe of the people at the top of the hierarchy. All I care about is his views are largely in accordance with the party and liberal philosophy. I am not in awe of our lord's and masters.
You were suggesting most LDs were republicans and disagreed with Davey, I was showing on the contrary most LD voters like Davey support our constitutional monarchy
No I wasn't. It is amazing how you can misread posts. Your ability to misunderstand stuff is truly awesome.
I was simply pointing out that we LDs are not in awe of our betters like you, i.e. Davey isn't god. We all think for ourselves and are not guided by our supreme leader.
You changed tack to that but your original statement was clearly suggesting LD voters were anti monarchy and Davey could not dictate LD policy over that
No it wasn't you Pillock. How can you so obviously misunderstand just 14 words. I'm not even anti and had no idea what LD voters views were.
You really are mad.
You made that comment specifically because you assumed LD voters disagreed with Davey's support for the constitutional monarchy, as the polling evidence I produced showed you you were wrong!
I didn't. At no time did I do so. I don't even believe it. My comment was entirely about your awe of people in charge.
You truly are incredibly stupid.
Nope it was entirely because you believed LDs were mainly republican, until I posted the polling evidence which proved you wrong and you suddenly changed tack
They seem to have called all the seats in Oz. Labor majority of three. Not sure how Gilmore is Labor with a 242 vote lead and 10% still to be counted, but there we go.
The politics has already moved on, Peter Dutton already held his first press conference as new Leader of the Opposition
Unclear as to whether Labor has a majority. They need 1 of Brisbane (Very tight with Greens as to who gets to TPP and wins) (Greens 60% maybe ?) Deakin (40.7% chance) Gilmore (27.8%) Lyons (56.2% chance) 1-(.722*.438*.593*.4) So their chance of a majority is about 92%.
In the end:
Brisbane - Green Deakin - Lib retain Gilmore - ALP retain Lyone - ALP retain
Jolyon Maugham has done far more for the rights of foxes than he has for his stated cause of opposing Brexit. Just as the attitude of certain trans activists has made some right wing culture warriors discover that maybe those women's rights activists were on to something; so the spectacle of a 'leftie lawyer' beating a fox to death seems to have made Brexiteers more fond of animal rights. My enemy's enemy is my friend after all.
I would also add some purely anecdotal evidence for this not being a good issue for the Tories to pursue: when May expressed a favourable attitude to fox hunting, this was the deciding factor for a number of people I know voting against the Tories. Given the other issues up for debate at the time this may seem extraordinary but it is obviously a debate that evokes a great deal of passion.
For Sunday I think I'll publish a piece reminding you that the Conservative Party uses a form of quasi AV to elect their party leader.
Jeez, not this again. It’s nothing like AV.
No numbers used, just ticks in boxes. Multiple but separate rounds of voting, with the ability to vote for any candidate in any round.
What you just described is just AV for innumerate people. I mean OK, technically you have an extra piece of information that you could use for various tactical shenanigans, but it's pretty much the same.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
I know what you mean - I remember in 2010 in mid-campaign trying to remember anything worthwhile that we actually campaigning for, other than "stop the Tories". And as a sitting MP that's not a good feeling. Objectively they need a period in Opposition to decide what they're for, unless one feels that Starmer is a deadly enemy of Britain.
I don't think "bring back fox-hunting" would work either, regardless of the merits - it's too obviously a dead cat policy. Probably not a majority in Parliament for it, either - there are 50 Tory MPs in the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation group who are strongly against it, and bingo, that's the majority gone.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
Not particularly! And I certainly wasn't selected for poshness.
Many of the worst academic snobs I have come across boast of their "working class" credentials ad nauseum. The very left wing rant about the inequity of British private schooling while being unable to notice the absurdity of their position when they also drone on about how they went to Trinity College Cambridge.
They seem to have called all the seats in Oz. Labor majority of three. Not sure how Gilmore is Labor with a 242 vote lead and 10% still to be counted, but there we go.
The politics has already moved on, Peter Dutton already held his first press conference as new Leader of the Opposition
Yeah. They have a new leader of the Nationals too. A Cabinet busy with work. All before the question of is there a majority government or not was settled.
Well I was meant to be getting my "Health MOT" this morning but the practice nurse is off sick. That's what happens when you hang around a load of ill people all day.
This is a real crisis bubbling under the surface at the moment. NHS front line staff are exhausted and have no more to give. Not just in the hospitals but right across the system. All of the surgeries in my area are severely understaffed due to people leaving and are seeing massive increases in their workloads. My local GP just down the road has seen a 25% increase in demand compared to before the pandemic and are operating with 3 fewer doctors and 2 fewer nurses. It really isn't sustainable.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini or whichever muppet dreamt this up thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
Take the Elephant out of the room rather than inventing Elephant shit vacuum cleaners Edit - but ill still not be thrilled you let an Elephant in
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
What is it with your idea of Germany having a “grand global imperial past”?
The height of their European “empire” (not including the Hitler days) was smaller than Sweden’s empire and is basically Germany as now.
Their overseas empire was a blink of the eye and consisted of an area 5 million square kms smaller than Brazil, part of an actual grand global empire of Portugal and only 1m sq km bigger than little Belgium’s empire in the Congo.
In the 19th Century Germany was quite a bit bigger than it is currently..
And for a short time in the 40's much bigger still.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
What is it with your idea of Germany having a “grand global imperial past”?
The height of their European “empire” (not including the Hitler days) was smaller than Sweden’s empire and is basically Germany as now.
Their overseas empire was a blink of the eye and consisted of an area 5 million square kms smaller than Brazil, part of an actual grand global empire of Portugal and only 1m sq km bigger than little Belgium’s empire in the Congo.
In the 19th Century Germany was quite a bit bigger than it is currently..
Wasn't it split into principalities for most of it?
HY is always correct and never gets it wrong. And certainly wouldn't pompously insist he is right regardless of the evidence or the laughter. So in this jubilee week we can Prove for a Fact that there was no Danish empire. Remember the tale in our royal family's past?
King Harold, daughter of a Dane, direct blood descendent of King Cnut the Great - a Viking- who only a few decades earlier had directly ruled England as part of his Danish Empire after centuries of Viking rule. Harold who fights off the King of Norway - a Viking - only to then be defeated by William. Who was a direct descendant of Rollo the Viking who had conquered Normandy. Nor Man. North men. Vikings.
So yes. HY is right and there was never a Danish empire and certainly not one big enough to seed the English royal family, create English cities that still stand, name hundreds of places and provide words and grammatical rules to the language. And living in Thornaby-on-Tees as I did I was very clear that Thornaby wasn't founded as Thormod (a Viking)'s Farmstead. No sir.
I, for one, shall always ignore that the Danes invaded my county in their empire building and killed our other patron saint and that my city bears their influence in street names like Pottergate and Westlegate. Im glad they stayed home and never went empire building
Fascinating linguistic oddity that. In Southron towns like, random ex, Winchester, Kingsgate Street is a street with a gate on it, but Pottergate is just Potter Street. see also gait.
They seem to have called all the seats in Oz. Labor majority of three. Not sure how Gilmore is Labor with a 242 vote lead and 10% still to be counted, but there we go.
The politics has already moved on, Peter Dutton already held his first press conference as new Leader of the Opposition
Yeah. They have a new leader of the Nationals too. A Cabinet busy with work. All before the question of is there a majority government or not was settled.
Count speed of the USA but without the mad lawyering over voting.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Some far left Scottish Nationalists like you but we don't care what you think.
In any case plenty of Presidents around the world went to posh schools and posh unis
Any responsible party of government cannot say "we do not care what you think" about any electoral group. We elect councillors, MPs, MSP etc who represent everyone in their electoral division, whether they voted for them or not. This is a very basic and fundamental principle of our democracy.
Government - applying the same basic and fundamental principle - has to govern for the whole country. It cannot just ignore groups it dislikes. HY claims to be the only True Tory, but in reality he is simply a fascist.
The wonderful Mhairi Black gave a brilliant speech on the subject of fascism recently in the commons
"Over the last 12 years, I fear we have been sleepwalking closer and closer to the F word. I know everyone is scared to say it for fear of sounding over the top or being accused of going too far, but I say this with all sincerity.
When I say the F word, I am talking about fascism—fascism wrapped in red, white and blue. You may mock and you may disagree, but fascism does not come in with intentional evil plans or the introduction of leather jackboots. It does not happen like that. It happens subtly.
It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power, when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power.
It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different. It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty.
I do not know how far down that road we are. Time will tell, but the things we do in the name of economic growth—the warning signs are there for everyone else to see, whether they admit it or not."
If you were Boris, you didn't care about anything except yourself, and it was obvious the fox hunting and the imperial units weren't going to do it for you, what would your next move be?
I think I'd dispatch the Royal Navy to the Black Sea, with instructions to sail there very slowly.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
Not particularly! And I certainly wasn't selected for poshness.
Many of the worst academic snobs I have come across boast of their "working class" credentials ad nauseum. The very left wing rant about the inequity of British private schooling while being unable to notice the absurdity of their position when they also drone on about how they went to Trinity College Cambridge.
I misread "posh unis" earlier in the thread and thought the PB house style had been updated and we would now refer to current Eton pupils as the posh uns' little uns.
Thoughts on the course of any near future Tory leadership contest:
- Only minor rule changes, so still potential for a large field of candidates - Predicted runners: Patel, Truss, Sunak (yes, I will despite the FPN), Hunt, Barclay (acceptable face of continuity), Harper (and/or someone of Steve Baker's ilk), Zahawi, Gove (of course), Javid (of course), Raab (if support), Mordaumt (perhaps with some one nation backing) - Spoken of non-runners: Leadsom, JRM, Wallace (Russia's wider Europe threat diminished for the moment), TMay
- Early fallers: Patel (small base), Harper, Baker, Javid (underwhelms again), Raab - Mid field: Zahawi (impresses a bit but no huge base), Mordaunt (doesn't quite get enough traction for her base not to drift Hunt), Truss/Barclay (if Truss performs badly Barclay goes further), Gove (not now, more likely as LOTO in a few years) - Leaves for me Sunak, Hunt, Truss/Barclay - I think Hunt drops and Sunak (still decent base and good campaign rehabilitates) Vs Truss/Barclay with the latter winning.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Pritis 24 election manifesto will be led by the restoration of the death penalty, not just for cop killers but also random foxes.
Allowing fox-hunting seems morally unsound to me on two grounds, but why should I be surprised at anything this administration does?
a) Always look for any upper class/lower class differential in any 'morality'-driven regulation. Cf. divorce under the C of E of old (Scotland was a bit more sensible, not sure about Wales). In this case fox hunting is definitely toff territory, largely upper class/snobbish activity (albeit with quite a few prole followers) - but why allow nobby blood sports when banning working class ones such as cock fighting and bull baiting?
b) foxes obv don't like being hunted*, but cockerels are only too happy to have a scrap, like squaddies of different regiments in an Aldershot pub, so who's being unkind to whom?
*On empirical grounds. They run away. Cf. M. S. Dawkins's 1970s/1980s research on hens, which showed that they preferred not to live in a battery cage but in the more old fashioned alternative, simply by giving them the option.
There is plenty of treatment of animals which people disagree over. Look at the cracking social media campaign that VFC is conducting right now.
One of the criteria to be applied to any activity, from riding ponies to foxhunting to keeping goldfish to having a domestic dog to having a dairy herd to zapping a fly should be - is it cruel.
And it was determined that foxhunting was not cruel.
That said, now is not the time to have a vote to bring back foxhunting. Not least because it would be defeated. Badly.
Well said. People who think fox hunting was cruel never bothered to read the burns report because they were far too consumed by their prejudice and general hatred of genuinely rural people that don't share their plastic view of the countryside.
Quality erasure of "genuinely rural people" who think fox hunting is a bag of shite.
Or are you only genuinely rural if you think fox hunting is good?
The genuinely rural realise that death and suffering among foxes has rocketed since the hunting act because people used to want there to be some foxes. Now they don't farmers and pheasant shoots splat them with nightsights by the dozen. The wounded ones die of gangrene because they don't lick their wounds (only tamed canids do)
I am sure a countryman like you knows all that. But hey, increased animal suffering Vs spiting the toffs...
Yes, famously farmers upon seeing a fox would think "I could shoot this fucker worrying my livestock right now but I better leave it around for some wankers to chase in 3 months time".
It's more complicated than that. First off the hunt spends a lot of time visiting said farmer (who might easily hunt or have a hunting daughter/family himself) for precisely these reasons. To ensure that there is understanding and agreement (areas to avoid, making good afterwards, etc). Farmers who are anti-hunting are left alone and no one goes near their land.
And of course there are people who live in the countryside who are anti-hunting. Not everyone outside the cities and suburbs supports hunting, and that's fine. Plenty do, however.
But the bigger point is more important, and you make it yourself - you accept that one way or another the fox gets it. Either by being shot (good luck with that but of course it happens) or snaring or gassing or being hunted by hounds.
And funnily enough of all of those methods the only one AFAIA that has had a whole enquiry dedicated to it is the last, hunting by hounds, and that enquiry determined that such activity was not cruel.
The enquiry determined there was not enough evidence to say whether it was cruel or not. That is a different thing.
"In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."[7]"
wiki
One does have to admit, that 'question' and 'no' are ambiguous.
We were not implying ...? Hunting is not cruel ...?
I'd normally go higher up in the sentence, and assume that 'no' wa sin response to 'people ask [us]'
I think it is legitimate to say that hunting is not cruel and that hunting is not not cruel.
I sometimes think people imagine old animals go off and live in animal care homes for their retirement. Every wild creature exits the world in pain, hunger, terror, disease or some combination of. Yes little foxes look cute, as do badgers. Badgers have shredded the hedgehog population for years now, as their population has boomed. They don't humanely kill the hedgehogs.
The case against fox hunting is bound up in the class war, and is televised by Townyfile.
HY is always correct and never gets it wrong. And certainly wouldn't pompously insist he is right regardless of the evidence or the laughter. So in this jubilee week we can Prove for a Fact that there was no Danish empire. Remember the tale in our royal family's past?
King Harold, daughter of a Dane, direct blood descendent of King Cnut the Great - a Viking- who only a few decades earlier had directly ruled England as part of his Danish Empire after centuries of Viking rule. Harold who fights off the King of Norway - a Viking - only to then be defeated by William. Who was a direct descendant of Rollo the Viking who had conquered Normandy. Nor Man. North men. Vikings.
So yes. HY is right and there was never a Danish empire and certainly not one big enough to seed the English royal family, create English cities that still stand, name hundreds of places and provide words and grammatical rules to the language. And living in Thornaby-on-Tees as I did I was very clear that Thornaby wasn't founded as Thormod (a Viking)'s Farmstead. No sir.
I, for one, shall always ignore that the Danes invaded my county in their empire building and killed our other patron saint and that my city bears their influence in street names like Pottergate and Westlegate. Im glad they stayed home and never went empire building
Fascinating linguistic oddity that. In Southron towns like, random ex, Winchester, Kingsgate Street is a street with a gate on it, but Pottergate is just Potter Street. see also gait.
I assume thats because of the lack of direct occupation for other than the brief Canute/Harthacanute periods as opposed to the lengthier Danelaw of the North and East?
The key section of Mhairi Black's speech on Fascism broken out into "oh yeah they're doing that" points:
It happens subtly. It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power,
when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power.
It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different.
It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty.
The othering of people is pretty much all that HY does on here.
If you were Boris, you didn't care about anything except yourself, and it was obvious the fox hunting and the imperial units weren't going to do it for you, what would your next move be?
I think I'd dispatch the Royal Navy to the Black Sea, with instructions to sail there very slowly.
Turkey would probably not let them in under Montreux.
Unless perhaps there was eg an international agreement to police a protected corridor for food exports.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
Not particularly! And I certainly wasn't selected for poshness.
Many of the worst academic snobs I have come across boast of their "working class" credentials ad nauseum. The very left wing rant about the inequity of British private schooling while being unable to notice the absurdity of their position when they also drone on about how they went to Trinity College Cambridge.
Isn't being clever and getting into an elite institution on merit something that one can more reasonably be proud of than having rich parents? At least, it should be obvious that they are not the same thing, no?
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Pritis 24 election manifesto will be led by the restoration of the death penalty, not just for cop killers but also random foxes.
Allowing fox-hunting seems morally unsound to me on two grounds, but why should I be surprised at anything this administration does?
a) Always look for any upper class/lower class differential in any 'morality'-driven regulation. Cf. divorce under the C of E of old (Scotland was a bit more sensible, not sure about Wales). In this case fox hunting is definitely toff territory, largely upper class/snobbish activity (albeit with quite a few prole followers) - but why allow nobby blood sports when banning working class ones such as cock fighting and bull baiting?
b) foxes obv don't like being hunted*, but cockerels are only too happy to have a scrap, like squaddies of different regiments in an Aldershot pub, so who's being unkind to whom?
*On empirical grounds. They run away. Cf. M. S. Dawkins's 1970s/1980s research on hens, which showed that they preferred not to live in a battery cage but in the more old fashioned alternative, simply by giving them the option.
There is plenty of treatment of animals which people disagree over. Look at the cracking social media campaign that VFC is conducting right now.
One of the criteria to be applied to any activity, from riding ponies to foxhunting to keeping goldfish to having a domestic dog to having a dairy herd to zapping a fly should be - is it cruel.
And it was determined that foxhunting was not cruel.
That said, now is not the time to have a vote to bring back foxhunting. Not least because it would be defeated. Badly.
Well said. People who think fox hunting was cruel never bothered to read the burns report because they were far too consumed by their prejudice and general hatred of genuinely rural people that don't share their plastic view of the countryside.
Quality erasure of "genuinely rural people" who think fox hunting is a bag of shite.
Or are you only genuinely rural if you think fox hunting is good?
The genuinely rural realise that death and suffering among foxes has rocketed since the hunting act because people used to want there to be some foxes. Now they don't farmers and pheasant shoots splat them with nightsights by the dozen. The wounded ones die of gangrene because they don't lick their wounds (only tamed canids do)
I am sure a countryman like you knows all that. But hey, increased animal suffering Vs spiting the toffs...
Yes, famously farmers upon seeing a fox would think "I could shoot this fucker worrying my livestock right now but I better leave it around for some wankers to chase in 3 months time".
It's more complicated than that. First off the hunt spends a lot of time visiting said farmer (who might easily hunt or have a hunting daughter/family himself) for precisely these reasons. To ensure that there is understanding and agreement (areas to avoid, making good afterwards, etc). Farmers who are anti-hunting are left alone and no one goes near their land.
And of course there are people who live in the countryside who are anti-hunting. Not everyone outside the cities and suburbs supports hunting, and that's fine. Plenty do, however.
But the bigger point is more important, and you make it yourself - you accept that one way or another the fox gets it. Either by being shot (good luck with that but of course it happens) or snaring or gassing or being hunted by hounds.
And funnily enough of all of those methods the only one AFAIA that has had a whole enquiry dedicated to it is the last, hunting by hounds, and that enquiry determined that such activity was not cruel.
The enquiry determined there was not enough evidence to say whether it was cruel or not. That is a different thing.
"In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."[7]"
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
And what on earth has that got to do with what I said? Your response had no relevance to the point I was making. I was simply pointing out that as usual you are in awe of the people at the top of the hierarchy. All I care about is his views are largely in accordance with the party and liberal philosophy. I am not in awe of our lord's and masters.
You were suggesting most LDs were republicans and disagreed with Davey, I was showing on the contrary most LD voters like Davey support our constitutional monarchy
No I wasn't. It is amazing how you can misread posts. Your ability to misunderstand stuff is truly awesome.
I was simply pointing out that we LDs are not in awe of our betters like you, i.e. Davey isn't god. We all think for ourselves and are not guided by our supreme leader.
You changed tack to that but your original statement was clearly suggesting LD voters were anti monarchy and Davey could not dictate LD policy over that
No it wasn't you Pillock. How can you so obviously misunderstand just 14 words. I'm not even anti and had no idea what LD voters views were.
You really are mad.
You made that comment specifically because you assumed LD voters disagreed with Davey's support for the constitutional monarchy, as the polling evidence I produced showed you you were wrong!
I didn't. At no time did I do so. I don't even believe it. My comment was entirely about your awe of people in charge.
You truly are incredibly stupid.
Nope it was entirely because you believed LDs were mainly republican, until I posted the polling evidence which proved you wrong and you suddenly changed tack
Agggghhh you are utterly mad. I know what I meant, others here clearly knew what I meant but only you can see inside my brain. You really need help.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
Not particularly! And I certainly wasn't selected for poshness.
Many of the worst academic snobs I have come across boast of their "working class" credentials ad nauseum. The very left wing rant about the inequity of British private schooling while being unable to notice the absurdity of their position when they also drone on about how they went to Trinity College Cambridge.
Hmm, that is not in itself illogical - different funding systems, especially in the old days when people got proper student grants tout court.
Edit: and different selection, as OLB helpfully reminds us.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
HY is always correct and never gets it wrong. And certainly wouldn't pompously insist he is right regardless of the evidence or the laughter. So in this jubilee week we can Prove for a Fact that there was no Danish empire. Remember the tale in our royal family's past?
King Harold, daughter of a Dane, direct blood descendent of King Cnut the Great - a Viking- who only a few decades earlier had directly ruled England as part of his Danish Empire after centuries of Viking rule. Harold who fights off the King of Norway - a Viking - only to then be defeated by William. Who was a direct descendant of Rollo the Viking who had conquered Normandy. Nor Man. North men. Vikings.
So yes. HY is right and there was never a Danish empire and certainly not one big enough to seed the English royal family, create English cities that still stand, name hundreds of places and provide words and grammatical rules to the language. And living in Thornaby-on-Tees as I did I was very clear that Thornaby wasn't founded as Thormod (a Viking)'s Farmstead. No sir.
I, for one, shall always ignore that the Danes invaded my county in their empire building and killed our other patron saint and that my city bears their influence in street names like Pottergate and Westlegate. Im glad they stayed home and never went empire building
Fascinating linguistic oddity that. In Southron towns like, random ex, Winchester, Kingsgate Street is a street with a gate on it, but Pottergate is just Potter Street. see also gait.
I assume thats because of the lack of direct occupation for other than the brief Canute/Harthacanute periods as opposed to the lengthier Danelaw of the North and East?
Most of the streets in Newark and many in Nottingham are 'gates' even though they were never gated. The direct origin of the derivation is still seen today in Norway where streets are called 'gate' (pronounced 'gata')
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
At the moment petrol round here is £7.70 per gallon. Diesel would be over £8 a gallon.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
Not particularly! And I certainly wasn't selected for poshness.
Many of the worst academic snobs I have come across boast of their "working class" credentials ad nauseum. The very left wing rant about the inequity of British private schooling while being unable to notice the absurdity of their position when they also drone on about how they went to Trinity College Cambridge.
Hmm, that is not in itself illogical - different funding systems, especially in the old days when people got proper student grants tout court.
Of course it is illogical. Oxbridge colleges are privately financed institutions that are absolute bastions of snobbery, class distinction, absurd anachronisms and extreme wealth. No socialist should cross their thresholds. But, yay, socialism always has its way of bending the rules. I would just call it hypocrisy though.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Pritis 24 election manifesto will be led by the restoration of the death penalty, not just for cop killers but also random foxes.
Allowing fox-hunting seems morally unsound to me on two grounds, but why should I be surprised at anything this administration does?
a) Always look for any upper class/lower class differential in any 'morality'-driven regulation. Cf. divorce under the C of E of old (Scotland was a bit more sensible, not sure about Wales). In this case fox hunting is definitely toff territory, largely upper class/snobbish activity (albeit with quite a few prole followers) - but why allow nobby blood sports when banning working class ones such as cock fighting and bull baiting?
b) foxes obv don't like being hunted*, but cockerels are only too happy to have a scrap, like squaddies of different regiments in an Aldershot pub, so who's being unkind to whom?
*On empirical grounds. They run away. Cf. M. S. Dawkins's 1970s/1980s research on hens, which showed that they preferred not to live in a battery cage but in the more old fashioned alternative, simply by giving them the option.
There is plenty of treatment of animals which people disagree over. Look at the cracking social media campaign that VFC is conducting right now.
One of the criteria to be applied to any activity, from riding ponies to foxhunting to keeping goldfish to having a domestic dog to having a dairy herd to zapping a fly should be - is it cruel.
And it was determined that foxhunting was not cruel.
That said, now is not the time to have a vote to bring back foxhunting. Not least because it would be defeated. Badly.
Well said. People who think fox hunting was cruel never bothered to read the burns report because they were far too consumed by their prejudice and general hatred of genuinely rural people that don't share their plastic view of the countryside.
Quality erasure of "genuinely rural people" who think fox hunting is a bag of shite.
Or are you only genuinely rural if you think fox hunting is good?
The genuinely rural realise that death and suffering among foxes has rocketed since the hunting act because people used to want there to be some foxes. Now they don't farmers and pheasant shoots splat them with nightsights by the dozen. The wounded ones die of gangrene because they don't lick their wounds (only tamed canids do)
I am sure a countryman like you knows all that. But hey, increased animal suffering Vs spiting the toffs...
Yes, famously farmers upon seeing a fox would think "I could shoot this fucker worrying my livestock right now but I better leave it around for some wankers to chase in 3 months time".
It's more complicated than that. First off the hunt spends a lot of time visiting said farmer (who might easily hunt or have a hunting daughter/family himself) for precisely these reasons. To ensure that there is understanding and agreement (areas to avoid, making good afterwards, etc). Farmers who are anti-hunting are left alone and no one goes near their land.
And of course there are people who live in the countryside who are anti-hunting. Not everyone outside the cities and suburbs supports hunting, and that's fine. Plenty do, however.
But the bigger point is more important, and you make it yourself - you accept that one way or another the fox gets it. Either by being shot (good luck with that but of course it happens) or snaring or gassing or being hunted by hounds.
And funnily enough of all of those methods the only one AFAIA that has had a whole enquiry dedicated to it is the last, hunting by hounds, and that enquiry determined that such activity was not cruel.
The enquiry determined there was not enough evidence to say whether it was cruel or not. That is a different thing.
"In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."[7]"
wiki
It's like right there in your quote.
Absolutely. So it is not cruel because there is not the evidence to say it is cruel. Right there in my quote.
And that's it on this one from me otherwise it is a he said-she said without end.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
Electric cars have never been more appealing.
Last night the girlfriend asked me to take her somewhere really expensive for dinner.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
At the moment petrol round here is £7.70 per gallon. Diesel would be over £8 a gallon.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
Bugger. Now scouring the internet for 'I went to Berlin and all I got was lousy Covid' t shirts.
Oh no, hope you are OK! My mum has just got it for the first time, I am guessing my dad will follow. A reminder it is still around. Take care of yourself - tea and paracetamol!
Ta, same to your mum (and dad if it spreads). My partner is untouched so far, hopefully the same for your folks.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Pritis 24 election manifesto will be led by the restoration of the death penalty, not just for cop killers but also random foxes.
Allowing fox-hunting seems morally unsound to me on two grounds, but why should I be surprised at anything this administration does?
a) Always look for any upper class/lower class differential in any 'morality'-driven regulation. Cf. divorce under the C of E of old (Scotland was a bit more sensible, not sure about Wales). In this case fox hunting is definitely toff territory, largely upper class/snobbish activity (albeit with quite a few prole followers) - but why allow nobby blood sports when banning working class ones such as cock fighting and bull baiting?
b) foxes obv don't like being hunted*, but cockerels are only too happy to have a scrap, like squaddies of different regiments in an Aldershot pub, so who's being unkind to whom?
*On empirical grounds. They run away. Cf. M. S. Dawkins's 1970s/1980s research on hens, which showed that they preferred not to live in a battery cage but in the more old fashioned alternative, simply by giving them the option.
There is plenty of treatment of animals which people disagree over. Look at the cracking social media campaign that VFC is conducting right now.
One of the criteria to be applied to any activity, from riding ponies to foxhunting to keeping goldfish to having a domestic dog to having a dairy herd to zapping a fly should be - is it cruel.
And it was determined that foxhunting was not cruel.
That said, now is not the time to have a vote to bring back foxhunting. Not least because it would be defeated. Badly.
Well said. People who think fox hunting was cruel never bothered to read the burns report because they were far too consumed by their prejudice and general hatred of genuinely rural people that don't share their plastic view of the countryside.
Quality erasure of "genuinely rural people" who think fox hunting is a bag of shite.
Or are you only genuinely rural if you think fox hunting is good?
The genuinely rural realise that death and suffering among foxes has rocketed since the hunting act because people used to want there to be some foxes. Now they don't farmers and pheasant shoots splat them with nightsights by the dozen. The wounded ones die of gangrene because they don't lick their wounds (only tamed canids do)
I am sure a countryman like you knows all that. But hey, increased animal suffering Vs spiting the toffs...
Yes, famously farmers upon seeing a fox would think "I could shoot this fucker worrying my livestock right now but I better leave it around for some wankers to chase in 3 months time".
It's more complicated than that. First off the hunt spends a lot of time visiting said farmer (who might easily hunt or have a hunting daughter/family himself) for precisely these reasons. To ensure that there is understanding and agreement (areas to avoid, making good afterwards, etc). Farmers who are anti-hunting are left alone and no one goes near their land.
And of course there are people who live in the countryside who are anti-hunting. Not everyone outside the cities and suburbs supports hunting, and that's fine. Plenty do, however.
But the bigger point is more important, and you make it yourself - you accept that one way or another the fox gets it. Either by being shot (good luck with that but of course it happens) or snaring or gassing or being hunted by hounds.
And funnily enough of all of those methods the only one AFAIA that has had a whole enquiry dedicated to it is the last, hunting by hounds, and that enquiry determined that such activity was not cruel.
The enquiry determined there was not enough evidence to say whether it was cruel or not. That is a different thing.
"In a later debate in the House of Lords, the inquiry chairman, Lord Burns, also stated that "Naturally, people ask whether we were implying that hunting is cruel... The short answer to that question is no. There was not sufficient verifiable evidence or data safely to reach views about cruelty. It is a complex area."[7]"
wiki
It's like right there in your quote.
Absolutely. So it is not cruel because there is not the evidence to say it is cruel. Right there in my quote.
And that's it on this one from me otherwise it is a he said-she said without end.
If I show you a sealed box and ask you if there is a hundred pounds inside do you confidently say "no".
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
I know what you mean - I remember in 2010 in mid-campaign trying to remember anything worthwhile that we actually campaigning for, other than "stop the Tories". And as a sitting MP that's not a good feeling. Objectively they need a period in Opposition to decide what they're for, unless one feels that Starmer is a deadly enemy of Britain.
I don't think "bring back fox-hunting" would work either, regardless of the merits - it's too obviously a dead cat policy. Probably not a majority in Parliament for it, either - there are 50 Tory MPs in the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation group who are strongly against it, and bingo, that's the majority gone.
Yeah, foxhunting is dead as a dodo
I am in no doubt whatever that gross fox deaths, and fox suffering via death by gangrene, have skyrocketed since the Act, largely because of the pheasant shooting community protecting its poults. How they get away with that, plus slaughtering specially bred animals by the hundred vs a couple of head of vermin which were there anyway, goodness knows (and if you think they all get eaten, balls, any number end up in catfood or landfill). And you and any other well informed ant intelligent animal rights bod know all that perfectly well, but it's just totemic
Anyway it's gone, it ain't coming back, and it ain't worth arguing about. Be good to see Raab lose his seat though.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
What do you drive, a chieftain tank?
Other than my Tesla, I can't think of a car I have had in the last 5 years that hasn't cost £120 to fill up lol.
What strikes me is the pathetic inertia and complacency of the UEFA and FIFA officials, even when told of the horrible chaos outside the stadium, going on there and then. Shameful
The Olympic Games will be fun in 2024.
Rugby World Cup there first. Saturday will ultimately save France from a worse bashing - they will throw everything at it to ensure nothing like it happens during the World Cup - I imagine the police will be ringing the whole area to avoid the mugging etc rather than focussing onwards on the fans.
If that sort of behaviour happened at the World Cup then it would point to the police/authorities but if they do everything to avoid it they will no doubt say “see, we told you it was those naughty Liverpool fans”.
I see the French sports minister has doubled down blaming it on Liverpool “letting their fans out into the wild”. If that’s the case they seem to have encountered the savages of St Denis on this safari. Who knew that the suburbs of Paris were the “wilds”?
The French public and media are not buying the minister’s feeble diversions, however. He’s getting fierce criticism from Left and Right. The Left are blaming the government and police, the Right are blaming the scum of the suburbs, and the socialists that try to excuse them
Virtually no one - in France - is blaming the Liverpool fans. Across all the newspapers it is “France wins the trophy for incompetence “ or “France is humiliated on the world stage”. They are taking it seriously and it is still front page news
And the Spanish media is filled with similar accounts of chaos and mugging gangs.
Must be quite a shock for Macron and friends that the strategy of "1) Blame the Brits" followed by "2) Lie your heads off" has stopped working.
Even France 24 are calling them out on it.
I think the thing that will hurt is questions about whether this will happen at the 2024 Olympics. eg Will anybody standing in a queue or presenting a ticket at a turnstyle at Paris 2024 be at risk of random assault by Police Officers with Pepper Spray, and how will such police officers be held to account.
Why they built the French national stadium in - literally - the worst, most dangerous part of France - is quite the mystery. I guess they hoped it would boost the area?
Now it’s a source of national humiliation
It made no sense at all to build the stadium where they did, without also clearing the slums actively regenerating the whole area around it.
Indeed. Stratford was hardly a desirable location when we built ours.
The French decided to take the equivalent of a random 150m x 100m piece of land between Brixton and Streatham, and put the national stadium there, with no other improvements to the area, making sure that all the stadium’s visitors would have to park in or walk through the dodgiest part of the city to get there.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Some far left Scottish Nationalists like you but we don't care what you think.
In any case plenty of Presidents around the world went to posh schools and posh unis
Hey, if you think I'm far left, you'd better start worrying about your appeal to voters.
I would not want the support of voters like you even if it was on offer, which it isn't. When have you ever voted Tory?
I would like @Carnyx vote as unlikely as it may seem, but your arrogant dismissive attitude to those outside your core vote would if others followed lead to the conservative party becoming a minor fringe party
Indeed you are remarkably like Corbyn and his followers and look where that has got them
If you were Boris, you didn't care about anything except yourself, and it was obvious the fox hunting and the imperial units weren't going to do it for you, what would your next move be?
I think I'd dispatch the Royal Navy to the Black Sea, with instructions to sail there very slowly.
That would work. Nonetheless, the icing on the populist cake has to be hanging traitors and nonces.
Now, what constitutes a traitor might be of debate. Fifty four letter writers might get a little nervous.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
Not particularly! And I certainly wasn't selected for poshness.
Many of the worst academic snobs I have come across boast of their "working class" credentials ad nauseum. The very left wing rant about the inequity of British private schooling while being unable to notice the absurdity of their position when they also drone on about how they went to Trinity College Cambridge.
Hmm, that is not in itself illogical - different funding systems, especially in the old days when people got proper student grants tout court.
Of course it is illogical. Oxbridge colleges are privately financed institutions that are absolute bastions of snobbery, class distinction, absurd anachronisms and extreme wealth. No socialist should cross their thresholds. But, yay, socialism always has its way of bending the rules. I would just call it hypocrisy though.
With respect, that's bollocks. Plenty of Oxbridge colleges have few of the trappings you talk about, plenty have relatively meagre financial endowments. What they are is academically highly selective. I don't have a problem with that in tertiary education, personally. The main thing is that they select on merit not wealth and many go out of their way to attract kids from comprehensives and/or working class backgrounds.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
What do you drive, a chieftain tank?
15 gallons? Doesn't sound unreasonable for a biggish road vehicle if the gauge was very low.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Pritis 24 election manifesto will be led by the restoration of the death penalty, not just for cop killers but also random foxes.
Allowing fox-hunting seems morally unsound to me on two grounds, but why should I be surprised at anything this administration does?
a) Always look for any upper class/lower class differential in any 'morality'-driven regulation. Cf. divorce under the C of E of old (Scotland was a bit more sensible, not sure about Wales). In this case fox hunting is definitely toff territory, largely upper class/snobbish activity (albeit with quite a few prole followers) - but why allow nobby blood sports when banning working class ones such as cock fighting and bull baiting?
b) foxes obv don't like being hunted*, but cockerels are only too happy to have a scrap, like squaddies of different regiments in an Aldershot pub, so who's being unkind to whom?
*On empirical grounds. They run away. Cf. M. S. Dawkins's 1970s/1980s research on hens, which showed that they preferred not to live in a battery cage but in the more old fashioned alternative, simply by giving them the option.
There is plenty of treatment of animals which people disagree over. Look at the cracking social media campaign that VFC is conducting right now.
One of the criteria to be applied to any activity, from riding ponies to foxhunting to keeping goldfish to having a domestic dog to having a dairy herd to zapping a fly should be - is it cruel.
And it was determined that foxhunting was not cruel.
That said, now is not the time to have a vote to bring back foxhunting. Not least because it would be defeated. Badly.
Well said. People who think fox hunting was cruel never bothered to read the burns report because they were far too consumed by their prejudice and general hatred of genuinely rural people that don't share their plastic view of the countryside.
Quality erasure of "genuinely rural people" who think fox hunting is a bag of shite.
Or are you only genuinely rural if you think fox hunting is good?
The genuinely rural realise that death and suffering among foxes has rocketed since the hunting act because people used to want there to be some foxes. Now they don't farmers and pheasant shoots splat them with nightsights by the dozen. The wounded ones die of gangrene because they don't lick their wounds (only tamed canids do)
I am sure a countryman like you knows all that. But hey, increased animal suffering Vs spiting the toffs...
Yes, famously farmers upon seeing a fox would think "I could shoot this fucker worrying my livestock right now but I better leave it around for some wankers to chase in 3 months time".
Absolutely fucking monumental fail because, yes, that is largely right, with various payoffs which have been explained to you. You might not like it but it is just how things were.
Never seen anyone embarrass himself so badly on here. You are like a self proclaimed member of the cricketing community who thinks the game is played with an oval ball.
You can't even get the dates right. Hunting ends as lambing begins, and three months time is in midsummer.
I applaud your pedantically useless obsession with a completely randomly chosen time period. It adds to the tenor and tone of the debate.
What strikes me is the pathetic inertia and complacency of the UEFA and FIFA officials, even when told of the horrible chaos outside the stadium, going on there and then. Shameful
The Olympic Games will be fun in 2024.
Rugby World Cup there first. Saturday will ultimately save France from a worse bashing - they will throw everything at it to ensure nothing like it happens during the World Cup - I imagine the police will be ringing the whole area to avoid the mugging etc rather than focussing onwards on the fans.
If that sort of behaviour happened at the World Cup then it would point to the police/authorities but if they do everything to avoid it they will no doubt say “see, we told you it was those naughty Liverpool fans”.
I see the French sports minister has doubled down blaming it on Liverpool “letting their fans out into the wild”. If that’s the case they seem to have encountered the savages of St Denis on this safari. Who knew that the suburbs of Paris were the “wilds”?
The French public and media are not buying the minister’s feeble diversions, however. He’s getting fierce criticism from Left and Right. The Left are blaming the government and police, the Right are blaming the scum of the suburbs, and the socialists that try to excuse them
Virtually no one - in France - is blaming the Liverpool fans. Across all the newspapers it is “France wins the trophy for incompetence “ or “France is humiliated on the world stage”. They are taking it seriously and it is still front page news
And the Spanish media is filled with similar accounts of chaos and mugging gangs.
Must be quite a shock for Macron and friends that the strategy of "1) Blame the Brits" followed by "2) Lie your heads off" has stopped working.
Even France 24 are calling them out on it.
I think the thing that will hurt is questions about whether this will happen at the 2024 Olympics. eg Will anybody standing in a queue or presenting a ticket at a turnstyle at Paris 2024 be at risk of random assault by Police Officers with Pepper Spray, and how will such police officers be held to account.
Why they built the French national stadium in - literally - the worst, most dangerous part of France - is quite the mystery. I guess they hoped it would boost the area?
Now it’s a source of national humiliation
It made no sense at all to build the stadium where they did, without also clearing the slums actively regenerating the whole area around it.
Indeed. Stratford was hardly a desirable location when we built ours.
The French decided to take the equivalent of a random 150m x 100m piece of land between Brixton and Streatham, and put the national stadium there, with no other improvements to the area, making sure that all the stadium’s visitors would have to park in or walk through the dodgiest part of the city to get there.
OT. If anyone is interested in thespian gossip fellatio Jewishness lesbianism Campbridge more fellatio film TV politics Miriam Margolyes autobiography has something in it for you!
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
What do you drive, a chieftain tank?
Other than my Tesla, I can't think of a car I have had in the last 5 years that hasn't cost £120 to fill up lol.
With the price of electricity, that will soon cost £550 to fill up.
I'd think Hunt and Wallace appeal to the same "serious common sense" sector of the party, which is probably more represented in the Parliamentary party than the wider membership, who are more into "serious conservatism". So I'd have thought a Hunt vs Truss final was more likely than a Hunt vs Wallace one. But others here are better-placed to judge, eh?
Certainly betting on a VONC happening seems a strong option, but beware of Betfair's market on this - you're betting on whether the VONC succeeds, perhaps a more iffy proposition.
A new leader will certainly give a temporary bounce - lots of people like BigG and dyedwoolie are natural Conservatives who would return to the fold. But the situation is objectively difficult, so the new person will struggle to come up with bright new prospects. From that viewpoint, the Tories might be best off with a change next year, by which time the energy price spike may have unwound, giving the new leader an aura of miraculous success. Either way it does seem to me that the dominant public view is that the Conservatives have run out of steam, much as they felt about Labour in 2009-10.
Tbf Nick even my dislike of Labour is starting to feel like not enough regardless of what the Tories do for next time. I quite like imperial measurements, so does my butcher for example, however bringing them back in some triumphant flag waving weirdness whilst we are mired in war, economic crisis and coming out of a really depressing 2 years makes the Cones Hotline look good politics.
Indeed.
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
I'd be happy to see £7 per gallon. That would be a substantial discount on what I paid last night. £120 to fill up... Gulp!
What do you drive, a chieftain tank?
Other than my Tesla, I can't think of a car I have had in the last 5 years that hasn't cost £120 to fill up lol.
Costs an effective 13.5p per kwh to charge a car at my office. Makes running the company EV very cheap indeed.
"It is a moment often seen in the downward trajectory of embattled prime ministers: a whirl of new policy ideas intended to appeal to voters, but which are in fact more often aimed at placating their own MPs. Boris Johnson is, some would argue, approaching this point.
In recent days Downing Street has briefed in favour of grammar schools and imperial measurements. Earlier weeks saw forays into other Conservative comfort zones, including bashing the EU and talking up fossil fuels.
Such nostalgia politics is routinely promoted by Conservative backbenchers. But it is one of the paradoxes of Tory party politics that the more secure a prime minister is in office, the less they have to indulge these ideas."
If Johnson loses both by-elections he'll have to go Full Tonto and offer a vote on fox hunting.
Our best hope there is: monarchy abolished, SF start taking seats, hold whip hand in minority government. In the meantime there's always the Emerald Isle. Begorrah.
None of the 3 main party leaders now want to abolish the monarchy, nor is it even a priority for SF who just want to be governed by Dublin not London
You do know that Davey isn't god don't you. He doesn't decide LD policy.
62% of LD voters also want to keep the monarchy, significantly higher than the 43% of Labour voters who want to keep the monarchy even if not quite as high as the 86% of Conservative voters who want to keep the monarchy
It's not a massive issue for me but if perchance there was a Referendum on keeping the monarchy I think I'd vote No. That's a change of heart compared to say 10 years ago.
The reason? Because the institution we have with its pomp and scale is really a hangover from our grand imperial past. It feels out of time now. More than this, it feels absurd and just a touch embarrassing. I get that feeling more than I do the rather heavier sense of it reinforcing white supremacy and class privilege. I also think it infantilizes us a bit. Along with the harmless and positive aspects it does that. Which is not a great thing esp when we have a PM doing the same albeit in a different way.
So, on balance with the monarchy, a la Duncan Bannatyne on Dragons Den - it's a No from me.
We had a monarchy centuries before we had an Empire or even a Union, many nations without imperial pasts eg Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Jordan also have constitutional monarchies
Wait, you think Denmark doesn't have an imperial past? Good god man, can you get ANYTHING right?
Compared to the Spanish Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the British Empire, the German Empires or even the Italian and Austrian empires no it doesn't.
Most of those are republics
That wasn't the question, anyway. Denmark's main 'imperialism' might be a bit further back, although the sovereign of Denmark was also that of Iceland until 1944 or so, and Norway until 1905. In 'early modern' times Sweden was very aggressive in Mid and Eastern Europe.
That is little different to the UK union, it is not a grand global imperial past like that of Britain or Germany or France or even a large European empire like that of Austria.
Certainly being a republican because of your nation's imperial past is ludicrous, France had a big imperial past and is a republic with an imperial presidency, see Bastille Day
Some UK subjects might differ. They might quite like to be proper citizens instead of being expected to cringe to people who went to posh schools and posh unis.
Surely you are at/attended an institution that falls into the latter category @Carnyx ?
Not particularly! And I certainly wasn't selected for poshness.
Many of the worst academic snobs I have come across boast of their "working class" credentials ad nauseum. The very left wing rant about the inequity of British private schooling while being unable to notice the absurdity of their position when they also drone on about how they went to Trinity College Cambridge.
Hmm, that is not in itself illogical - different funding systems, especially in the old days when people got proper student grants tout court.
Of course it is illogical. Oxbridge colleges are privately financed institutions that are absolute bastions of snobbery, class distinction, absurd anachronisms and extreme wealth. No socialist should cross their thresholds. But, yay, socialism always has its way of bending the rules. I would just call it hypocrisy though.
With respect, that's bollocks. Plenty of Oxbridge colleges have few of the trappings you talk about, plenty have relatively meagre financial endowments. What they are is academically highly selective. I don't have a problem with that in tertiary education, personally. The main thing is that they select on merit not wealth and many go out of their way to attract kids from comprehensives and/or working class backgrounds.
Discrimination on the grounds of people being academic (or having educated parents) is Ok to you? I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people knocking private education while bragging about how clever they were to get into Oxbridge (made up of mainly very wealthy anachronistic colleges with few exceptions). It is hypocritical. Don't get vexed by it though, if this is your bit of snobbery I am sure we will all forgive you for it.
Comments
The height of their European “empire” (not including the Hitler days) was smaller than Sweden’s empire and is basically Germany as now.
Their overseas empire was a blink of the eye and consisted of an area 5 million square kms smaller than Brazil, part of an actual grand global empire of Portugal and only 1m sq km bigger than little Belgium’s empire in the Congo.
No numbers used, just ticks in boxes. Multiple but separate rounds of voting, with the ability to vote for any candidate in any round.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-05-30/peter-dutton-new-liberal-leader-press-conference/101109716
(Which, to be fair, was similar for much of the country on Brexit - I know people who voted leave because that, when asked, was their position, but had no great interest in being asked and were pretty content with the status quo; also know similar people on the remain side who voted remain for a quiet life rather than out of any conviction)
I'm the grandson of humble immigrants to this country.
I cannot be posh.
The class system in this country is bizarre.
You truly are incredibly stupid.
Im glad they stayed home and never went empire building
The thing is, we already use a mixture of metric and imperial as it is. It may not be neat and tidy but we're used to it, from old to young. No one is suddenly going to be thrilled to see £7 a gallon petrol signs appearing.
If David Canzini, or whichever muppet dreamt this up, thinks it's going to fix Boris Johnson's popularity then they are stark raving bonkers. Or working for the Opposition.
Unclear as to whether Labor has a majority. They need 1 of Brisbane (Very tight with Greens as to who gets to TPP and wins) (Greens 60% maybe ?) Deakin (40.7% chance) Gilmore (27.8%) Lyons (56.2% chance) 1-(.722*.438*.593*.4) So their chance of a majority is about 92%.
In the end:
Brisbane - Green
Deakin - Lib retain
Gilmore - ALP retain
Lyone - ALP retain
Jolyon Maugham has done far more for the rights of foxes than he has for his stated cause of opposing Brexit. Just as the attitude of certain trans activists has made some right wing culture warriors discover that maybe those women's rights activists were on to something; so the spectacle of a 'leftie lawyer' beating a fox to death seems to have made Brexiteers more fond of animal rights. My enemy's enemy is my friend after all.
I would also add some purely anecdotal evidence for this not being a good issue for the Tories to pursue: when May expressed a favourable attitude to fox hunting, this was the deciding factor for a number of people I know voting against the Tories. Given the other issues up for debate at the time this may seem extraordinary but it is obviously a debate that evokes a great deal of passion.
I don't think "bring back fox-hunting" would work either, regardless of the merits - it's too obviously a dead cat policy. Probably not a majority in Parliament for it, either - there are 50 Tory MPs in the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation group who are strongly against it, and bingo, that's the majority gone.
All before the question of is there a majority government or not was settled.
Edit - but ill still not be thrilled you let an Elephant in
Second most comfortable pair of shoes I've ever worn.
Government - applying the same basic and fundamental principle - has to govern for the whole country. It cannot just ignore groups it dislikes. HY claims to be the only True Tory, but in reality he is simply a fascist.
The wonderful Mhairi Black gave a brilliant speech on the subject of fascism recently in the commons
"Over the last 12 years, I fear we have been sleepwalking closer and closer to the F word. I know everyone is scared to say it for fear of sounding over the top or being accused of going too far, but I say this with all sincerity.
When I say the F word, I am talking about fascism—fascism wrapped in red, white and blue. You may mock and you may disagree, but fascism does not come in with intentional evil plans or the introduction of leather jackboots. It does not happen like that. It happens subtly.
It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power, when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power.
It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different. It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty.
I do not know how far down that road we are. Time will tell, but the things we do in the name of economic growth—the warning signs are there for everyone else to see, whether they admit it or not."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVZ3QwA5wy8
I think I'd dispatch the Royal Navy to the Black Sea, with instructions to sail there very slowly.
- Only minor rule changes, so still potential for a large field of candidates
- Predicted runners: Patel, Truss, Sunak (yes, I will despite the FPN), Hunt, Barclay (acceptable face of continuity), Harper (and/or someone of Steve Baker's ilk), Zahawi, Gove (of course), Javid (of course), Raab (if support), Mordaumt (perhaps with some one nation backing)
- Spoken of non-runners: Leadsom, JRM, Wallace (Russia's wider Europe threat diminished for the moment), TMay
- Early fallers: Patel (small base), Harper, Baker, Javid (underwhelms again), Raab
- Mid field: Zahawi (impresses a bit but no huge base), Mordaunt (doesn't quite get enough traction for her base not to drift Hunt), Truss/Barclay (if Truss performs badly Barclay goes further), Gove (not now, more likely as LOTO in a few years)
- Leaves for me Sunak, Hunt, Truss/Barclay - I think Hunt drops and Sunak (still decent base and good campaign rehabilitates) Vs Truss/Barclay with the latter winning.
The case against fox hunting is bound up in the class war, and is televised by Townyfile.
It happens subtly. It happens when we see Governments making decisions based on self-preservation, based on cronyism, based on anything that will keep them in power,
when we see the concentration of power while avoiding any of the scrutiny or responsibility that comes with that power.
It arrives under the guise of respectability and pride, which will then be refused to anyone who is deemed different.
It arrives through the othering of people and the normalisation of human cruelty.
The othering of people is pretty much all that HY does on here.
Unless perhaps there was eg an international agreement to police a protected corridor for food exports.
Would that affect BoJo?
On a normal pair of decent shoes the most I have spent is about £150. And they have lasted me the last 6 years and are still going strong.
Edit: and different selection, as OLB helpfully reminds us.
They have been resoled twice but everything else is original.
Give me a German or Italian vehicle any day over a Jag.
My max on a pair of shoes is about £75 I think. That was a bargain pair of Bally shoes that I've hardly ever worn.
And that's it on this one from me otherwise it is a he said-she said without end.
https://unherd.com/2022/05/dominic-cummings-i-dont-like-parties/
Dominic Cummings with Suzanne Moore.
She asks all the questions you would want answering.
(Precis: Basically, it's all Carrie's fault.)
Last night the girlfriend asked me to take her somewhere really expensive for dinner.
They have been re-soled, the uppers have been replaced, and the linings renewed but they are still going strong.
If I show you a sealed box and ask you if there is a hundred pounds inside do you confidently say "no".
Or do you say "I don't know".
Those answers are different.
I am in no doubt whatever that gross fox deaths, and fox suffering via death by gangrene, have skyrocketed since the Act, largely because of the pheasant shooting community protecting its poults. How they get away with that, plus slaughtering specially bred animals by the hundred vs a couple of head of vermin which were there anyway, goodness knows (and if you think they all get eaten, balls, any number end up in catfood or landfill). And you and any other well informed ant intelligent animal rights bod know all that perfectly well, but it's just totemic
Anyway it's gone, it ain't coming back, and it ain't worth arguing about. Be good to see Raab lose his seat though.
Indeed you are remarkably like Corbyn and his followers and look where that has got them
Now, what constitutes a traitor might be of debate. Fifty four letter writers might get a little nervous.