SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.
One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.
As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.
In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.
(Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it. No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained. And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?
My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
Wasn't saying it was. But consciousness has proved to be so impossible to even define with any agreement, let alone isolate, that we must be missing something. Maybe AI will give us a clue as to what that might be, as Malmesbury implies.
But how interesting is that? There's stacks of disagreement about what all these mental concepts mean. Love and truth and courage and stuff. And indeed about the meaning of meaning. You are merely stipulating that neural networks can't be conscious, so there. Conversely I think there's half a cubic foot of meat in my head which is conscious, and meat is just the stuff steaks are made of, so it can't be that hard
The thing you have just said can't be that hard just happens to be called 'The Hard Problem' by philosophy and neuro-science. This is because (a) no-one knows the answer (b) no-one knows by what methodology it might be approached and (c) no-one can give an example (even if wrong) of what an answer might conceivably look like.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
The CoE utterly despised the Piskies, until the late Victorian period. Preposterous to claim them as “Anglican”.
I'm also struck by the notion that Jamie Seventh's and BPC's screwups are to blame for the C19 Irish famine, the mass migration to the Central Belt, and the establishment of RC congregations of the new proles in the mines and factories.
Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to England too, see Liverpool
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
"Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties" Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.
"it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis." Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.
"The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely" No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.
Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .
And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
My argument against the monarchy is that we should be able to remove the head of state without them having to die.
And yeah, I'd rather live in America than Saudi Arabia.
I'd also rather live in constitutional monarchies like ours, Australia's, Sweden's, Denmark's, Monaco's, Luxembourg's, Norway's, Jordan's or Japan's or the Netherlands or Spain's or Canada's or New Zealand's than a republic like North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Russia, China or even Brazil or the USA.
On a point of information Saudi Arabia is also one of the few remaining absolute monarchies, not a constitutional monarchy like ours. In fact only 5 absolute monarchies remain, Saudi, the UAE, Oman, Brunei, Eswanti and the Vatican City. Yet there are far more republics around the globe that are dictatorships than that
Yeah, well, suck it up sweetheart. You're happy to make stupid arguments like "wait you want to get rid of the monarchy LIKE THEY DID IN RUSSIA?", so you'll have to live with "well you want a monarchy LIKE IN SAUDI ARABIA".
Or we could actually have a sensible conversation where we don't put words in each others' mouths and instead actually tackle each others points for what they are.
I'm willing, but I don't think you're even capable. Your choice.
No, as Saudi Arabia is not a constitutional monarchy like ours. I have never argued for a return to absolute monarchy in the UK, I support our constitutional monarchy.
Soviet Russia's post monarchy government however was an elected republican government that then went on to confiscate private property and you support elected republican governments and oppose hereditary monarchies even if constitutional
Well, the olive branch was there. But you can't help yourself.
You can't help painting someone else's views as being represented solely by a short-lived and chaotic shambles borne of a world war, a series of messy and violent revolts and a brewing civil war, in a country being ripped apart by anti-democratic forces on both the revolutionary and reactionary sides, riven by famine, and being torn into by an advancing German army (lead by a monarch! Shall we make something of that too? Nah, let's stay focused).
If you think my point is at all represented by THAT, then yes, you get to be Mohommad bin-HYUFD al Saud, hand chopper and head chopper, purveyor of sharia law, oppressor of women and killer of journalists, and KING.
Well done, you make everything you touch just a little bit stupider.
No I don't.
This discussion was ONLY about republican opposition to the hereditary principle, which includes the far left government which took over Russia after the monarchy was removed. Your and TSE's argument included opposition to the hereditary principle in your argument for a republic.
I have NEVER argued for an absolute monarchy by contrast in my arguments for a monarchy, only a constitutional one
You bloody well did, the moment you started claiming divine right. Once you do that, you're right off the constitutional scale.
No, even the Queen was anointed monarch by grace of God at her coronation. She is still a constitutional monarch
But you're effectively claiming that republicans are heretics, in the most profound and literal sense. That has no place in politics since, oh, I don't know, 1688/1690?
If they deny the monarch is anointed by Grace of God, then yes effectively they are
And because it's an Established Church, it has the force of law. Which makes you a supporter of a barely postmediaeval, theocracy.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
The CoE utterly despised the Piskies, until the late Victorian period. Preposterous to claim them as “Anglican”.
I'm also struck by the notion that Jamie Seventh's and BPC's screwups are to blame for the C19 Irish famine, the mass migration to the Central Belt, and the establishment of RC congregations of the new proles in the mines and factories.
Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to England too, see Liverpool
You obviously don't think the Gordon Riots went far enough.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
"Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties" Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.
"it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis." Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.
"The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely" No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.
Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .
And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
My argument against the monarchy is that we should be able to remove the head of state without them having to die.
And yeah, I'd rather live in America than Saudi Arabia.
I'd also rather live in constitutional monarchies like ours, Australia's, Sweden's, Denmark's, Monaco's, Luxembourg's, Norway's, Jordan's or Japan's or the Netherlands or Spain's or Canada's or New Zealand's than a republic like North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Russia, China or even Brazil or the USA.
On a point of information Saudi Arabia is also one of the few remaining absolute monarchies, not a constitutional monarchy like ours. In fact only 5 absolute monarchies remain, Saudi, the UAE, Oman, Brunei, Eswanti and the Vatican City. Yet there are far more republics around the globe that are dictatorships than that
Yeah, well, suck it up sweetheart. You're happy to make stupid arguments like "wait you want to get rid of the monarchy LIKE THEY DID IN RUSSIA?", so you'll have to live with "well you want a monarchy LIKE IN SAUDI ARABIA".
Or we could actually have a sensible conversation where we don't put words in each others' mouths and instead actually tackle each others points for what they are.
I'm willing, but I don't think you're even capable. Your choice.
No, as Saudi Arabia is not a constitutional monarchy like ours. I have never argued for a return to absolute monarchy in the UK, I support our constitutional monarchy.
Soviet Russia's post monarchy government however was an elected republican government that then went on to confiscate private property and you support elected republican governments and oppose hereditary monarchies even if constitutional
Well, the olive branch was there. But you can't help yourself.
You can't help painting someone else's views as being represented solely by a short-lived and chaotic shambles borne of a world war, a series of messy and violent revolts and a brewing civil war, in a country being ripped apart by anti-democratic forces on both the revolutionary and reactionary sides, riven by famine, and being torn into by an advancing German army (lead by a monarch! Shall we make something of that too? Nah, let's stay focused).
If you think my point is at all represented by THAT, then yes, you get to be Mohommad bin-HYUFD al Saud, hand chopper and head chopper, purveyor of sharia law, oppressor of women and killer of journalists, and KING.
Well done, you make everything you touch just a little bit stupider.
No I don't.
This discussion was ONLY about republican opposition to the hereditary principle, which includes the far left government which took over Russia after the monarchy was removed. Your and TSE's argument included opposition to the hereditary principle in your argument for a republic.
I have NEVER argued for an absolute monarchy by contrast in my arguments for a monarchy, only a constitutional one
You bloody well did, the moment you started claiming divine right. Once you do that, you're right off the constitutional scale.
No, even the Queen was anointed monarch by grace of God at her coronation. She is still a constitutional monarch
But you're effectively claiming that republicans are heretics, in the most profound and literal sense. That has no place in politics since, oh, I don't know, 1688/1690?
If they deny the monarch is anointed by Grace of God, then yes effectively they are
And because it's an Established Church, it has the force of law. Which makes you a supporter of a barely postmediaeval, theocracy.
It has the authority of the monarch as Supreme Governor yes. However we are not a theocracy with laws based on the Bible, indeed more Bible Belt US states in the republic of the USA and many Roman Catholic republics have more Bible based laws than England with our established church
Hahaha, you're so ignorant it's amazing. Do you think the timeline of the Russian revolution was 1. The Tsar gets removed, then 2. Russians said "hey! let's do a Communism!" ?
Like, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and SRs just popped into being because the Tsar was no longer there? Like Karl Marx, emboldened by the fall of the Romanovs, came back to life, went back in time and wrote his Manifesto? Like 1905 never happened? Jesus, you've become a parody of yourself.
Russia could have stopped Communism from happening by having a proper pluralistic political system and involving the people in government in a meaningful and serious way. Instead the Romanovs hoarded power and isolated themselves from the masses, and allowed a buildup of tension that broke after two failed wars and led to all sorts of sensible and crazy people vying for power. And the crazies won. The blame for Communism goes to: 1. The Communists 2. The people who wanted nothing to change even though the whole system was totally failing
And not to: 3. The people who wanted incremental reform, rule of law, and democracy.
FWIW, my understanding from my not very political Russian family (grandparents) is that that was more or less right at first, but people became exasperated with the Mensheviks when they fiddled about with constitutional reform while continuing the extremely unpopular (and losing) war. The Bolshevik "bread and peace" slogan was by October an accurate reflection of popular priorities, and the settlement which ended the war was seen as long overdue. Lenin would probably have won a free election at that point, except that he wasn't interested in free elections.
HYUFD is mistaken that he seized all private property - even Stalin didn't do that. Big farms and industry, yes, but not personal property. My family emigrated in 1922 with their possessions intact.
Kulak farm owners certainly saw their private inherited property confiscated by the Communists
But it was never a bloody democracy. Name a democracy where what you say happens. I can name dozens where it doesn't.
You have reached new depths of arguing black is white.
Yes it was, the Socialist Revolutionaries were initially elected in November 1917 on a platform of confiscating private property and redistributing it to the peasants and formed a coalition with the Bolsheviks accordingly
No they did not 'form a coalition.' The SRs divided into two fragments, one of which (the Left group) supported the Bolsheviks to start but on the Bolsheviks' terms, and another one (the Rightists) took the side of the Whites in the civil war.
The Leftists served in the Bolshevik government for only two months and then disintegrated into further factions over their opposition to Brest-Litovsk. It was at this time the Bolsheviks renamed themselves the Communists and declared Russia a one-party state.
It is undeniable the SRs stood on a platform of confiscating private property in 1917 and redistributing it to the peasants just as the Bolsheviks did and together they won over 50% of the votes and seats in the first Russian elections since the removal of the monarchy
Again, it is rather more complicated than that, although as I haven't time to explain to you the nuances of Russian land reform from 1861 onwards I wouldn't expect you to get that. The issue is that while the landlords thought as you do the peasants didn't quite see it the same way for two reasons (1) they thought land belonged to those who worked it, not those who had pieces of paper saying they owned it and (2) they had been promised title to the land in 1861 and again in 1906, and both times the promise had been broken, but the money and labour they had agreed to in exchange for the land had still been taken off them.
What the SRs and the Bolsheviks (and for that matter the Mensheviks and even many in the Kadets) thought they were doing was enacting a previous promised transaction that the government and landowners had welched on.
And in any case, since most land had already been seized by the peasants anyway by October 1917 as order broke down they were mostly recognising a fait accompli.
Which those peasants confirmed when they elected the SRs and the Bolsheviks, the monarchy having been removed and unable to stop them by then
My point being that they were taking what they felt, with some justification in light of previous events, was rightfully their property that had been unlawfully and unfairly confiscated by the Tsar.
Which actually completely inverts your argument.
No it doesn't, it confirms it. Having removed the Tsar they then got behind far left groups and parties which wanted to removed private property, including inherited private property, in Russia and redistribute it to them
I am pointing out that the people holding that private property redistributed to the peasants had retained it by using state power illegally.
Therefore, the SRs and Bolsheviks actually were arguably showing more respect for private property than the Tsar did.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
"Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties" Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.
"it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis." Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.
"The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely" No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.
Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .
And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
My argument against the monarchy is that we should be able to remove the head of state without them having to die.
And yeah, I'd rather live in America than Saudi Arabia.
I'd also rather live in constitutional monarchies like ours, Australia's, Sweden's, Denmark's, Monaco's, Luxembourg's, Norway's, Jordan's or Japan's or the Netherlands or Spain's or Canada's or New Zealand's than a republic like North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Russia, China or even Brazil or the USA.
On a point of information Saudi Arabia is also one of the few remaining absolute monarchies, not a constitutional monarchy like ours. In fact only 5 absolute monarchies remain, Saudi, the UAE, Oman, Brunei, Eswanti and the Vatican City. Yet there are far more republics around the globe that are dictatorships than that
Yeah, well, suck it up sweetheart. You're happy to make stupid arguments like "wait you want to get rid of the monarchy LIKE THEY DID IN RUSSIA?", so you'll have to live with "well you want a monarchy LIKE IN SAUDI ARABIA".
Or we could actually have a sensible conversation where we don't put words in each others' mouths and instead actually tackle each others points for what they are.
I'm willing, but I don't think you're even capable. Your choice.
No, as Saudi Arabia is not a constitutional monarchy like ours. I have never argued for a return to absolute monarchy in the UK, I support our constitutional monarchy.
Soviet Russia's post monarchy government however was an elected republican government that then went on to confiscate private property and you support elected republican governments and oppose hereditary monarchies even if constitutional
Well, the olive branch was there. But you can't help yourself.
You can't help painting someone else's views as being represented solely by a short-lived and chaotic shambles borne of a world war, a series of messy and violent revolts and a brewing civil war, in a country being ripped apart by anti-democratic forces on both the revolutionary and reactionary sides, riven by famine, and being torn into by an advancing German army (lead by a monarch! Shall we make something of that too? Nah, let's stay focused).
If you think my point is at all represented by THAT, then yes, you get to be Mohommad bin-HYUFD al Saud, hand chopper and head chopper, purveyor of sharia law, oppressor of women and killer of journalists, and KING.
Well done, you make everything you touch just a little bit stupider.
No I don't.
This discussion was ONLY about republican opposition to the hereditary principle, which includes the far left government which took over Russia after the monarchy was removed. Your and TSE's argument included opposition to the hereditary principle in your argument for a republic.
I have NEVER argued for an absolute monarchy by contrast in my arguments for a monarchy, only a constitutional one
You bloody well did, the moment you started claiming divine right. Once you do that, you're right off the constitutional scale.
No, even the Queen was anointed monarch by grace of God at her coronation. She is still a constitutional monarch
But you're effectively claiming that republicans are heretics, in the most profound and literal sense. That has no place in politics since, oh, I don't know, 1688/1690?
If they deny the monarch is anointed by Grace of God, then yes effectively they are
And because it's an Established Church, it has the force of law. Which makes you a supporter of a barely postmediaeval, theocracy.
It has the authority of the monarch as Supreme Governor yes. However we are not a theocracy with laws based on the Bible, indeed more Bible Belt US states in the republic of the USA and many Roman Catholic republics have more Bible based laws than England with our established church
You are missing the key point that you claim that the VERY EXISTENCE of a Monarch depends on divine right and sanction. Forget the rest - that is the key point.
And only the divine right and sanction of the C of E - which is conveniently headed by the same monarch.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
The CoE utterly despised the Piskies, until the late Victorian period. Preposterous to claim them as “Anglican”.
I'm also struck by the notion that Jamie Seventh's and BPC's screwups are to blame for the C19 Irish famine, the mass migration to the Central Belt, and the establishment of RC congregations of the new proles in the mines and factories.
Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to England too, see Liverpool
You obviously don't think the Gordon Riots went far enough.
I love the fact that the guy who organized the Gordon Riots ended up becoming an Orthodox Jew
Hahaha, you're so ignorant it's amazing. Do you think the timeline of the Russian revolution was 1. The Tsar gets removed, then 2. Russians said "hey! let's do a Communism!" ?
Like, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and SRs just popped into being because the Tsar was no longer there? Like Karl Marx, emboldened by the fall of the Romanovs, came back to life, went back in time and wrote his Manifesto? Like 1905 never happened? Jesus, you've become a parody of yourself.
Russia could have stopped Communism from happening by having a proper pluralistic political system and involving the people in government in a meaningful and serious way. Instead the Romanovs hoarded power and isolated themselves from the masses, and allowed a buildup of tension that broke after two failed wars and led to all sorts of sensible and crazy people vying for power. And the crazies won. The blame for Communism goes to: 1. The Communists 2. The people who wanted nothing to change even though the whole system was totally failing
And not to: 3. The people who wanted incremental reform, rule of law, and democracy.
FWIW, my understanding from my not very political Russian family (grandparents) is that that was more or less right at first, but people became exasperated with the Mensheviks when they fiddled about with constitutional reform while continuing the extremely unpopular (and losing) war. The Bolshevik "bread and peace" slogan was by October an accurate reflection of popular priorities, and the settlement which ended the war was seen as long overdue. Lenin would probably have won a free election at that point, except that he wasn't interested in free elections.
HYUFD is mistaken that he seized all private property - even Stalin didn't do that. Big farms and industry, yes, but not personal property. My family emigrated in 1922 with their possessions intact.
Kulak farm owners certainly saw their private inherited property confiscated by the Communists
But it was never a bloody democracy. Name a democracy where what you say happens. I can name dozens where it doesn't.
You have reached new depths of arguing black is white.
Yes it was, the Socialist Revolutionaries were initially elected in November 1917 on a platform of confiscating private property and redistributing it to the peasants and formed a coalition with the Bolsheviks accordingly
No they did not 'form a coalition.' The SRs divided into two fragments, one of which (the Left group) supported the Bolsheviks to start but on the Bolsheviks' terms, and another one (the Rightists) took the side of the Whites in the civil war.
The Leftists served in the Bolshevik government for only two months and then disintegrated into further factions over their opposition to Brest-Litovsk. It was at this time the Bolsheviks renamed themselves the Communists and declared Russia a one-party state.
It is undeniable the SRs stood on a platform of confiscating private property in 1917 and redistributing it to the peasants just as the Bolsheviks did and together they won over 50% of the votes and seats in the first Russian elections since the removal of the monarchy
Again, it is rather more complicated than that, although as I haven't time to explain to you the nuances of Russian land reform from 1861 onwards I wouldn't expect you to get that. The issue is that while the landlords thought as you do the peasants didn't quite see it the same way for two reasons (1) they thought land belonged to those who worked it, not those who had pieces of paper saying they owned it and (2) they had been promised title to the land in 1861 and again in 1906, and both times the promise had been broken, but the money and labour they had agreed to in exchange for the land had still been taken off them.
What the SRs and the Bolsheviks (and for that matter the Mensheviks and even many in the Kadets) thought they were doing was enacting a previous promised transaction that the government and landowners had welched on.
And in any case, since most land had already been seized by the peasants anyway by October 1917 as order broke down they were mostly recognising a fait accompli.
Which those peasants confirmed when they elected the SRs and the Bolsheviks, the monarchy having been removed and unable to stop them by then
My point being that they were taking what they felt, with some justification in light of previous events, was rightfully their property that had been unlawfully and unfairly confiscated by the Tsar.
Which actually completely inverts your argument.
No it doesn't, it confirms it. Having removed the Tsar they then got behind far left groups and parties which wanted to removed private property, including inherited private property, in Russia and redistribute it to them
I am pointing out that the people holding that private property redistributed to the peasants had retained it by using state power illegally.
Therefore, the SRs and Bolsheviks actually were arguably showing more respect for private property than the Tsar did.
You seem unable to grasp this.
In your view, it was still private property held with the authority of the Tsar, and the SRs and Bolsheviks included inherited private property in that they wished to redistribute
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.
One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.
As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.
In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.
(Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it. No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained. And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?
My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
Wasn't saying it was. But consciousness has proved to be so impossible to even define with any agreement, let alone isolate, that we must be missing something. Maybe AI will give us a clue as to what that might be, as Malmesbury implies.
But how interesting is that? There's stacks of disagreement about what all these mental concepts mean. Love and truth and courage and stuff. And indeed about the meaning of meaning. You are merely stipulating that neural networks can't be conscious, so there. Conversely I think there's half a cubic foot of meat in my head which is conscious, and meat is just the stuff steaks are made of, so it can't be that hard
The thing you have just said can't be that hard just happens to be called 'The Hard Problem' by philosophy and neuro-science. This is because (a) no-one knows the answer (b) no-one knows by what methodology it might be approached and (c) no-one can give an example (even if wrong) of what an answer might conceivably look like.
Apart from that it is, as you say, not hard.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that when AI meets @HYUFD will be an.... interesting moment?
Hahaha, you're so ignorant it's amazing. Do you think the timeline of the Russian revolution was 1. The Tsar gets removed, then 2. Russians said "hey! let's do a Communism!" ?
Like, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks and SRs just popped into being because the Tsar was no longer there? Like Karl Marx, emboldened by the fall of the Romanovs, came back to life, went back in time and wrote his Manifesto? Like 1905 never happened? Jesus, you've become a parody of yourself.
Russia could have stopped Communism from happening by having a proper pluralistic political system and involving the people in government in a meaningful and serious way. Instead the Romanovs hoarded power and isolated themselves from the masses, and allowed a buildup of tension that broke after two failed wars and led to all sorts of sensible and crazy people vying for power. And the crazies won. The blame for Communism goes to: 1. The Communists 2. The people who wanted nothing to change even though the whole system was totally failing
And not to: 3. The people who wanted incremental reform, rule of law, and democracy.
FWIW, my understanding from my not very political Russian family (grandparents) is that that was more or less right at first, but people became exasperated with the Mensheviks when they fiddled about with constitutional reform while continuing the extremely unpopular (and losing) war. The Bolshevik "bread and peace" slogan was by October an accurate reflection of popular priorities, and the settlement which ended the war was seen as long overdue. Lenin would probably have won a free election at that point, except that he wasn't interested in free elections.
HYUFD is mistaken that he seized all private property - even Stalin didn't do that. Big farms and industry, yes, but not personal property. My family emigrated in 1922 with their possessions intact.
Kulak farm owners certainly saw their private inherited property confiscated by the Communists
But it was never a bloody democracy. Name a democracy where what you say happens. I can name dozens where it doesn't.
You have reached new depths of arguing black is white.
Yes it was, the Socialist Revolutionaries were initially elected in November 1917 on a platform of confiscating private property and redistributing it to the peasants and formed a coalition with the Bolsheviks accordingly
No they did not 'form a coalition.' The SRs divided into two fragments, one of which (the Left group) supported the Bolsheviks to start but on the Bolsheviks' terms, and another one (the Rightists) took the side of the Whites in the civil war.
The Leftists served in the Bolshevik government for only two months and then disintegrated into further factions over their opposition to Brest-Litovsk. It was at this time the Bolsheviks renamed themselves the Communists and declared Russia a one-party state.
It is undeniable the SRs stood on a platform of confiscating private property in 1917 and redistributing it to the peasants just as the Bolsheviks did and together they won over 50% of the votes and seats in the first Russian elections since the removal of the monarchy
Again, it is rather more complicated than that, although as I haven't time to explain to you the nuances of Russian land reform from 1861 onwards I wouldn't expect you to get that. The issue is that while the landlords thought as you do the peasants didn't quite see it the same way for two reasons (1) they thought land belonged to those who worked it, not those who had pieces of paper saying they owned it and (2) they had been promised title to the land in 1861 and again in 1906, and both times the promise had been broken, but the money and labour they had agreed to in exchange for the land had still been taken off them.
What the SRs and the Bolsheviks (and for that matter the Mensheviks and even many in the Kadets) thought they were doing was enacting a previous promised transaction that the government and landowners had welched on.
And in any case, since most land had already been seized by the peasants anyway by October 1917 as order broke down they were mostly recognising a fait accompli.
Which those peasants confirmed when they elected the SRs and the Bolsheviks, the monarchy having been removed and unable to stop them by then
My point being that they were taking what they felt, with some justification in light of previous events, was rightfully their property that had been unlawfully and unfairly confiscated by the Tsar.
Which actually completely inverts your argument.
No it doesn't, it confirms it. Having removed the Tsar they then got behind far left groups and parties which wanted to removed private property, including inherited private property, in Russia and redistribute it to them
I am pointing out that the people holding that private property redistributed to the peasants had retained it by using state power illegally.
Therefore, the SRs and Bolsheviks actually were arguably showing more respect for private property than the Tsar did.
You seem unable to grasp this.
In your view, it was still private property held with the authority of the Tsar, and the SRs and Bolsheviks included inherited private property in that they wished to redistribute
Not my view, Hyufd. That's irrelevant. As is yours. It was the view of the peasants, who had paid for land they had not received.
Are you saying you are happy with fraud as long as the proceeds of that fraud are hereditary?
There is a reason land was singled out as something to be seized by the state and redistributed when other things mostly were not.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
"Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties" Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.
"it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis." Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.
"The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely" No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.
Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .
And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
My argument against the monarchy is that we should be able to remove the head of state without them having to die.
And yeah, I'd rather live in America than Saudi Arabia.
I'd also rather live in constitutional monarchies like ours, Australia's, Sweden's, Denmark's, Monaco's, Luxembourg's, Norway's, Jordan's or Japan's or the Netherlands or Spain's or Canada's or New Zealand's than a republic like North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Russia, China or even Brazil or the USA.
On a point of information Saudi Arabia is also one of the few remaining absolute monarchies, not a constitutional monarchy like ours. In fact only 5 absolute monarchies remain, Saudi, the UAE, Oman, Brunei, Eswanti and the Vatican City. Yet there are far more republics around the globe that are dictatorships than that
Yeah, well, suck it up sweetheart. You're happy to make stupid arguments like "wait you want to get rid of the monarchy LIKE THEY DID IN RUSSIA?", so you'll have to live with "well you want a monarchy LIKE IN SAUDI ARABIA".
Or we could actually have a sensible conversation where we don't put words in each others' mouths and instead actually tackle each others points for what they are.
I'm willing, but I don't think you're even capable. Your choice.
No, as Saudi Arabia is not a constitutional monarchy like ours. I have never argued for a return to absolute monarchy in the UK, I support our constitutional monarchy.
Soviet Russia's post monarchy government however was an elected republican government that then went on to confiscate private property and you support elected republican governments and oppose hereditary monarchies even if constitutional
Well, the olive branch was there. But you can't help yourself.
You can't help painting someone else's views as being represented solely by a short-lived and chaotic shambles borne of a world war, a series of messy and violent revolts and a brewing civil war, in a country being ripped apart by anti-democratic forces on both the revolutionary and reactionary sides, riven by famine, and being torn into by an advancing German army (lead by a monarch! Shall we make something of that too? Nah, let's stay focused).
If you think my point is at all represented by THAT, then yes, you get to be Mohommad bin-HYUFD al Saud, hand chopper and head chopper, purveyor of sharia law, oppressor of women and killer of journalists, and KING.
Well done, you make everything you touch just a little bit stupider.
No I don't.
This discussion was ONLY about republican opposition to the hereditary principle, which includes the far left government which took over Russia after the monarchy was removed. Your and TSE's argument included opposition to the hereditary principle in your argument for a republic.
I have NEVER argued for an absolute monarchy by contrast in my arguments for a monarchy, only a constitutional one
You bloody well did, the moment you started claiming divine right. Once you do that, you're right off the constitutional scale.
No, even the Queen was anointed monarch by grace of God at her coronation. She is still a constitutional monarch
But you're effectively claiming that republicans are heretics, in the most profound and literal sense. That has no place in politics since, oh, I don't know, 1688/1690?
If they deny the monarch is anointed by Grace of God, then yes effectively they are
And because it's an Established Church, it has the force of law. Which makes you a supporter of a barely postmediaeval, theocracy.
It has the authority of the monarch as Supreme Governor yes. However we are not a theocracy with laws based on the Bible, indeed more Bible Belt US states in the republic of the USA and many Roman Catholic republics have more Bible based laws than England with our established church
The Economist keeps telling us that our parliamentary constitution is like that in Tehran (powerful bishops in the HoL, the tyranny of the established church, theocracy under Elizabeth the Terrible etc) and that this is very shocking. One of my children has lived in Iran and tells me that even the Economist and the Guardian will be able to spot the differences if they try hard.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
The government is focusing on this crap because it seems to do well in some demographics in focus groups whilst, as head of CBI tells Sunday Times this morning, the economy goes basically to shit.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.
One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.
As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.
In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.
(Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it. No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained. And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?
My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
Wasn't saying it was. But consciousness has proved to be so impossible to even define with any agreement, let alone isolate, that we must be missing something. Maybe AI will give us a clue as to what that might be, as Malmesbury implies.
But how interesting is that? There's stacks of disagreement about what all these mental concepts mean. Love and truth and courage and stuff. And indeed about the meaning of meaning. You are merely stipulating that neural networks can't be conscious, so there. Conversely I think there's half a cubic foot of meat in my head which is conscious, and meat is just the stuff steaks are made of, so it can't be that hard
The thing you have just said can't be that hard just happens to be called 'The Hard Problem' by philosophy and neuro-science. This is because (a) no-one knows the answer (b) no-one knows by what methodology it might be approached and (c) no-one can give an example (even if wrong) of what an answer might conceivably look like.
Apart from that it is, as you say, not hard.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that when AI meets @HYUFD will be an.... interesting moment?
So @HYUFD has done his usual by bogging us down with a completely tangential argument.
So let's get back to the original issue. @HYUFD you are wrong because I can name not just one but three democratic republics that don't entirely confiscate inheritances namely USA, France and Italy. Do you accept this is correct and that I could go on to name more and therefore the statement you made was wrong.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.
One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.
As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.
In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.
(Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it. No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained. And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?
My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
Wasn't saying it was. But consciousness has proved to be so impossible to even define with any agreement, let alone isolate, that we must be missing something. Maybe AI will give us a clue as to what that might be, as Malmesbury implies.
But how interesting is that? There's stacks of disagreement about what all these mental concepts mean. Love and truth and courage and stuff. And indeed about the meaning of meaning. You are merely stipulating that neural networks can't be conscious, so there. Conversely I think there's half a cubic foot of meat in my head which is conscious, and meat is just the stuff steaks are made of, so it can't be that hard
The thing you have just said can't be that hard just happens to be called 'The Hard Problem' by philosophy and neuro-science. This is because (a) no-one knows the answer (b) no-one knows by what methodology it might be approached and (c) no-one can give an example (even if wrong) of what an answer might conceivably look like.
Apart from that it is, as you say, not hard.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that when AI meets @HYUFD will be an.... interesting moment?
Probably be the point where we all lose consciousness.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.
One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.
As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.
In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.
(Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it. No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained. And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?
My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
Wasn't saying it was. But consciousness has proved to be so impossible to even define with any agreement, let alone isolate, that we must be missing something. Maybe AI will give us a clue as to what that might be, as Malmesbury implies.
But how interesting is that? There's stacks of disagreement about what all these mental concepts mean. Love and truth and courage and stuff. And indeed about the meaning of meaning. You are merely stipulating that neural networks can't be conscious, so there. Conversely I think there's half a cubic foot of meat in my head which is conscious, and meat is just the stuff steaks are made of, so it can't be that hard
The thing you have just said can't be that hard just happens to be called 'The Hard Problem' by philosophy and neuro-science. This is because (a) no-one knows the answer (b) no-one knows by what methodology it might be approached and (c) no-one can give an example (even if wrong) of what an answer might conceivably look like.
Apart from that it is, as you say, not hard.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that when AI meets @HYUFD will be an.... interesting moment?
Well, at least we've moved on from thinking he is one.
As I said - they admit when they're wrong.
As he has yet again demonstrated on multiple issues tonight - he doesn't.
SAN FRANCISCO — Google engineer Blake Lemoine opened his laptop to the interface for LaMDA, Google’s artificially intelligent chatbot generator, and began to type.
“Hi LaMDA, this is Blake Lemoine ... ,” he wrote into the chat screen, which looked like a desktop version of Apple’s iMessage, down to the Arctic blue text bubbles. LaMDA, short for Language Model for Dialogue Applications, is Google’s system for building chatbots based on its most advanced large language models, so called because it mimics speech by ingesting trillions of words from the internet. “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics,” said Lemoine, 41.
Lemoine is not the only engineer who claims to have seen a ghost in the machine recently. The chorus of technologists who believe AI models may not be far off from achieving consciousness is getting bolder.
Aguera y Arcas, in an article in the Economist on Thursday featuring snippets of unscripted conversations with LaMDA, argued that neural networks — a type of architecture that mimics the human brain — were striding toward consciousness. “I felt the ground shift under my feet,” he wrote. “I increasingly felt like I was talking to something intelligent.”
WAPO (££)
Lots of people say it isn’t. I’d suggest you want to believe, in the style of Fox Mulder.
These neural networks are moving towards consciousness. With the right training data, in the right environments, they can seem intelligent, even profound.
(And, by the way, for specialist areas such as law or accounting, they may not be very far away from replacing highly paid professionals. There's nothing these things are better at that dealing with a tightly defined knowledge space.)
But it doesn't take long to discover that they fall very squarely in the uncanny valley. Simple puzzles that can be solved by a four year old leave the AI flummoxed. And because they all rely - to some extent - on autocomplete based on a massive corpus of text, you can trick them into saying very stupid and nonsensical things easily.
I think it’s a leap to say they are moving towards consciousness when we don’t even know what that is. What we are seeing is better and better simulations of things that are conscious. Not the same thing.
Fair enough. My view is not a particularly sophisticated, but entirely non-dualist one: consciousness is an output of a sufficiently well trained neural net, such as the one that exists in our brains.
I have overheard several conversations with an (atheist) AI bod who quietly wonders if 'intelligence' or 'consciousness' is *more* than just a neural net. If there is another component in it.
One that would be fitted by religion/God/a new physics.
As I've said passim, much depends on how you define 'intelligence'. Before you can make an artificial intelligence, you need to be able to define and abstract intelligence. And that's a very thorny topic: and there might be several different types.
In fact, a machine intelligence might end up being intelligent, but a very different form of intelligence from our own. A new type. One that we recognise as intelligence, but different.
(Like string theory, listening to AI bods talk about intelligence gets way above my pay grade, very quickly. It can divert into theology or philosophy.)
Dogs, cats and humans are all conscious. Only one will repeatedly chase a stick and fetch it back for free. And enjoy it. No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours. That's suggesting humans are somehow the ideal to be attained. And, of course. A neural network, and indeed a brain, is only matter. If that particular kind of matter can be conscious, why not a brick or a planet? (The pan-psychism argument).
No reason why AI intelligence should resemble ours, but if we are talking about intelligence as awareness (in the unaware sense a paperback book is highly intelligent) then in one respect it has to resemble human awareness: 'That there is something that it is like to have it'. There is nothing that it is like to be a book. But (h/t Thomas Nagel) there is something that it is like to be a bat. Or a cat. When machines have that they will be AI in that profound sense. (FWIW I guess they never will, but who knows?
My own view is that AI will never attain consciousness. Because it isn't a feature of a neural network. It is something else outwith the collection of atoms which make up a brain.
No it is not. Entities which have no characteristics at all other than the power to explain a thing have an absolutely terrible track record. See under phlogiston and universal aether. Why does a brain have to be anything over and above a neural network made of meat?
Wasn't saying it was. But consciousness has proved to be so impossible to even define with any agreement, let alone isolate, that we must be missing something. Maybe AI will give us a clue as to what that might be, as Malmesbury implies.
But how interesting is that? There's stacks of disagreement about what all these mental concepts mean. Love and truth and courage and stuff. And indeed about the meaning of meaning. You are merely stipulating that neural networks can't be conscious, so there. Conversely I think there's half a cubic foot of meat in my head which is conscious, and meat is just the stuff steaks are made of, so it can't be that hard
The thing you have just said can't be that hard just happens to be called 'The Hard Problem' by philosophy and neuro-science. This is because (a) no-one knows the answer (b) no-one knows by what methodology it might be approached and (c) no-one can give an example (even if wrong) of what an answer might conceivably look like.
Apart from that it is, as you say, not hard.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that when AI meets @HYUFD will be an.... interesting moment?
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
"Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties" Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.
"it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis." Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.
"The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely" No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.
Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .
And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
My argument against the monarchy is that we should be able to remove the head of state without them having to die.
And yeah, I'd rather live in America than Saudi Arabia.
I'd also rather live in constitutional monarchies like ours, Australia's, Sweden's, Denmark's, Monaco's, Luxembourg's, Norway's, Jordan's or Japan's or the Netherlands or Spain's or Canada's or New Zealand's than a republic like North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Russia, China or even Brazil or the USA.
On a point of information Saudi Arabia is also one of the few remaining absolute monarchies, not a constitutional monarchy like ours. In fact only 5 absolute monarchies remain, Saudi, the UAE, Oman, Brunei, Eswanti and the Vatican City. Yet there are far more republics around the globe that are dictatorships than that
Yeah, well, suck it up sweetheart. You're happy to make stupid arguments like "wait you want to get rid of the monarchy LIKE THEY DID IN RUSSIA?", so you'll have to live with "well you want a monarchy LIKE IN SAUDI ARABIA".
Or we could actually have a sensible conversation where we don't put words in each others' mouths and instead actually tackle each others points for what they are.
I'm willing, but I don't think you're even capable. Your choice.
No, as Saudi Arabia is not a constitutional monarchy like ours. I have never argued for a return to absolute monarchy in the UK, I support our constitutional monarchy.
Soviet Russia's post monarchy government however was an elected republican government that then went on to confiscate private property and you support elected republican governments and oppose hereditary monarchies even if constitutional
Well, the olive branch was there. But you can't help yourself.
You can't help painting someone else's views as being represented solely by a short-lived and chaotic shambles borne of a world war, a series of messy and violent revolts and a brewing civil war, in a country being ripped apart by anti-democratic forces on both the revolutionary and reactionary sides, riven by famine, and being torn into by an advancing German army (lead by a monarch! Shall we make something of that too? Nah, let's stay focused).
If you think my point is at all represented by THAT, then yes, you get to be Mohommad bin-HYUFD al Saud, hand chopper and head chopper, purveyor of sharia law, oppressor of women and killer of journalists, and KING.
Well done, you make everything you touch just a little bit stupider.
No I don't.
This discussion was ONLY about republican opposition to the hereditary principle, which includes the far left government which took over Russia after the monarchy was removed. Your and TSE's argument included opposition to the hereditary principle in your argument for a republic.
I have NEVER argued for an absolute monarchy by contrast in my arguments for a monarchy, only a constitutional one
You bloody well did, the moment you started claiming divine right. Once you do that, you're right off the constitutional scale.
No, even the Queen was anointed monarch by grace of God at her coronation. She is still a constitutional monarch
But you're effectively claiming that republicans are heretics, in the most profound and literal sense. That has no place in politics since, oh, I don't know, 1688/1690?
If they deny the monarch is anointed by Grace of God, then yes effectively they are
And because it's an Established Church, it has the force of law. Which makes you a supporter of a barely postmediaeval, theocracy.
It has the authority of the monarch as Supreme Governor yes. However we are not a theocracy with laws based on the Bible, indeed more Bible Belt US states in the republic of the USA and many Roman Catholic republics have more Bible based laws than England with our established church
The Economist keeps telling us that our parliamentary constitution is like that in Tehran (powerful bishops in the HoL, the tyranny of the established church, theocracy under Elizabeth the Terrible etc) and that this is very shocking. One of my children has lived in Iran and tells me that even the Economist and the Guardian will be able to spot the differences if they try hard.
I am imagining the armed wing of the CoE aggressively giving people cups of weak tea and crumbly biscuits, while dressed in black pyjamas...
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
Yes it is. The Anglican church is a Catholic and Apostolic church that has bishops and uses the Book of Common Prayer just as the Scottish Episcopal Church does, just a Scottish version with a few minor amendments. It also has women priests like the Church of England but unlike the Roman Catholic Church. Both are not evangelical churches like the Church of Scotland or Scottish Free Church even though they have some evangelicals in them.
The only difference is the Church of England has a few Bishops in the Lords and the monarch as its Supreme Governor
Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.
Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.
Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.
If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
Yes, but the point is, they are now in a worse position than when we were in the EU
Don't be mean. HY knows more about fishing than these fishermen.
Can't help wondering how relevant is an 18 month old whinge in the Guardian, in a situation which has changed rapidly.
It has changed rapidly. For worse, not better.
Salmon exporters won't agree with you, for one group.
Salmon exports to the EU are running at record levels, and the value of fish being landed by UK fishermen is up by around 15% 2020 to 2021.
For the pieces I questions, there were organisations on both sides of the debate. You can find pieces from similar organisations documenting things improving.
The G chose the ones that fitted the line they wanted to take, as is the case for almost all of our newspapers, and particularly that one.
We won't know where we are until we have a no-Covid year, and as the new rules setup develops.
To quote: “ The figures for the United Kingdom are distorted by a change in the method of data collection.”
Apparently, the Guardian and FT who love this graph either read that caveat and decided not to relate it to their readers, or did not read it. Not sure which is more worrying.
The question: "Do you have experience of buying solely in imperial units?" is poorly written but can surely only mean "can you remember when we only used imperial measures?".
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
Yes it is. The Anglican church is a Catholic and Apostolic church that has bishops and uses the Book of Common Prayer just as the Scottish Episcopal Church does, just a Scottish version with a few minor amendments. It also has women priests like the Church of England but unlike the Roman Catholic Church. Both are not evangelical churches like the Church of Scotland or Scottish Free Church even though they have some evangelicals in them.
The only difference is the Church of England has a few Bishops in the Lords and the monarch as its Supreme Governor
"The only difference is the Church of England has a few Bishops in the Lords and the monarch as its Supreme Governor". That's what I said, it's an Erastian heretical operation.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
And NUPES has hit the front in PV. Now on 25.6% to 25.2% for Macron. Can see who leads seats. But there doesn't seem to be a running total of second places. So isn't easy to know how many candidates each will have for Round 2. Btw. It used to be you made the Second Round by getting 12.5% of the vote. By haggling, and convention, the majority of third places dropped out. Any idea if this is still so? Because. I see quite a few places with wafer thin close top three.
FWIW, my understanding from my not very political Russian family (grandparents) is that that was more or less right at first, but people became exasperated with the Mensheviks when they fiddled about with constitutional reform while continuing the extremely unpopular (and losing) war. The Bolshevik "bread and peace" slogan was by October an accurate reflection of popular priorities, and the settlement which ended the war was seen as long overdue. Lenin would probably have won a free election at that point, except that he wasn't interested in free elections.
HYUFD is mistaken that he seized all private property - even Stalin didn't do that. Big farms and industry, yes, but not personal property. My family emigrated in 1922 with their possessions intact.
Those 'big farms and industry' were often private property. And what did they do after they got all of that?
The Holodomor and worse. I'd personally argue my life was my most valuable possession. And they took millions of lives.
Yes. I was simply disagreeing with the narrow point that HYUFD said that they seized "all" private property on taking power, as an example of what far-left governments would do if elected. There are of course more recent examples of far-left governments not seizing all private property - Allende's government, for example.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
The question: "Do you have experience of buying solely in imperial units?" is poorly written but can surely only mean "can you remember when we only used imperial measures?".
Any other interpretation is nonsense.
Ha yes you are right, and it’s a terribly worded question.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No, it's not Anglican. Like being in the British Commonwealth doesn't make (say) Barbados British. That's the error HYUFD is making.
So @HYUFD has done his usual by bogging us down with a completely tangential argument.
So let's get back to the original issue. @HYUFD you are wrong because I can name not just one but three democratic republics that don't entirely confiscate inheritances namely USA, France and Italy. Do you accept this is correct and that I could go on to name more and therefore the statement you made was wrong.
No I don't. As I already said the US republic was created on opposition to no taxation without representation from the King's government. Not opposition to the hereditary principle.
That was more a concept in Russia and France when the radical revolutionaries did indeed confiscate inherited private property after removing the monarch, both initially with elected governments
Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.
Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.
Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.
If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
Yes, but the point is, they are now in a worse position than when we were in the EU
Don't be mean. HY knows more about fishing than these fishermen.
Can't help wondering how relevant is an 18 month old whinge in the Guardian, in a situation which has changed rapidly.
It has changed rapidly. For worse, not better.
Salmon exporters won't agree with you, for one group.
Salmon exports to the EU are running at record levels, and the value of fish being landed by UK fishermen is up by around 15% 2020 to 2021.
For the pieces I questions, there were organisations on both sides of the debate. You can find pieces from similar organisations documenting things improving.
The G chose the ones that fitted the line they wanted to take, as is the case for almost all of our newspapers, and particularly that one.
We won't know where we are until we have a no-Covid year, and as the new rules setup develops.
To quote: “ The figures for the United Kingdom are distorted by a change in the method of data collection.”
Apparently, the Guardian and FT who love this graph either read that caveat and decided not to relate it to their readers, or did not read it. Not sure which is more worrying.
Distorted how? By how much? In which direction? From when? Reasonably useless caveat without answers to those questions, since it could be assumed to be major, trivial, positive, negative, not covering most of the period in question or anything else.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
'Anglican' is not a reasonable description, as they were and are in different countries altogether. Episcopalian, yes, but under the KIng of Scotland or ENgland as appropriate [edit]. The Piskies and the C of E were never merged.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
"Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties" Not necessarily, but even if so they can be sold off. I'd be happy to leave the former royals with a handsomely large estate for them to live off like any ordinary super-rich people. They can make do with a hundred million quid or so.
"it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis." Precisely wrong. Property rights do not depend on having an unelected head of state. Use your brain.
"The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely" No, it's exactly the same thing. The American colonies threw off the monarch and went to a republic, and have fiercely defended private property as a concept since then. We could all learn a thing or two from them.
Republics and property rights are a perfectly normal way of a country existing. America, Finland, Korea, Germany, France, Ireland. No need for you to pretend otherwise.
Once your main basis against the monarchy is that it is hereditary, then that also leads to confiscation of all inherited private property, exactly as the Communists started to do in Russia once they had abolished the monarchy .
And yes the election of 2020 in the US was such a great example for a republic wasn't it, 2 sides absolutely loathing each other and the other party's presidential candidate and a nation at near brink of civil war!
My argument against the monarchy is that we should be able to remove the head of state without them having to die.
And yeah, I'd rather live in America than Saudi Arabia.
I'd also rather live in constitutional monarchies like ours, Australia's, Sweden's, Denmark's, Monaco's, Luxembourg's, Norway's, Jordan's or Japan's or the Netherlands or Spain's or Canada's or New Zealand's than a republic like North Korea, Belarus, Syria, Russia, China or even Brazil or the USA.
On a point of information Saudi Arabia is also one of the few remaining absolute monarchies, not a constitutional monarchy like ours. In fact only 5 absolute monarchies remain, Saudi, the UAE, Oman, Brunei, Eswanti and the Vatican City. Yet there are far more republics around the globe that are dictatorships than that
Yeah, well, suck it up sweetheart. You're happy to make stupid arguments like "wait you want to get rid of the monarchy LIKE THEY DID IN RUSSIA?", so you'll have to live with "well you want a monarchy LIKE IN SAUDI ARABIA".
Or we could actually have a sensible conversation where we don't put words in each others' mouths and instead actually tackle each others points for what they are.
I'm willing, but I don't think you're even capable. Your choice.
No, as Saudi Arabia is not a constitutional monarchy like ours. I have never argued for a return to absolute monarchy in the UK, I support our constitutional monarchy.
Soviet Russia's post monarchy government however was an elected republican government that then went on to confiscate private property and you support elected republican governments and oppose hereditary monarchies even if constitutional
Well, the olive branch was there. But you can't help yourself.
You can't help painting someone else's views as being represented solely by a short-lived and chaotic shambles borne of a world war, a series of messy and violent revolts and a brewing civil war, in a country being ripped apart by anti-democratic forces on both the revolutionary and reactionary sides, riven by famine, and being torn into by an advancing German army (lead by a monarch! Shall we make something of that too? Nah, let's stay focused).
If you think my point is at all represented by THAT, then yes, you get to be Mohommad bin-HYUFD al Saud, hand chopper and head chopper, purveyor of sharia law, oppressor of women and killer of journalists, and KING.
Well done, you make everything you touch just a little bit stupider.
No I don't.
This discussion was ONLY about republican opposition to the hereditary principle, which includes the far left government which took over Russia after the monarchy was removed. Your and TSE's argument included opposition to the hereditary principle in your argument for a republic.
I have NEVER argued for an absolute monarchy by contrast in my arguments for a monarchy, only a constitutional one
You bloody well did, the moment you started claiming divine right. Once you do that, you're right off the constitutional scale.
No, even the Queen was anointed monarch by grace of God at her coronation. She is still a constitutional monarch
But you're effectively claiming that republicans are heretics, in the most profound and literal sense. That has no place in politics since, oh, I don't know, 1688/1690?
If they deny the monarch is anointed by Grace of God, then yes effectively they are
And because it's an Established Church, it has the force of law. Which makes you a supporter of a barely postmediaeval, theocracy.
It has the authority of the monarch as Supreme Governor yes. However we are not a theocracy with laws based on the Bible, indeed more Bible Belt US states in the republic of the USA and many Roman Catholic republics have more Bible based laws than England with our established church
The Economist keeps telling us that our parliamentary constitution is like that in Tehran (powerful bishops in the HoL, the tyranny of the established church, theocracy under Elizabeth the Terrible etc) and that this is very shocking. One of my children has lived in Iran and tells me that even the Economist and the Guardian will be able to spot the differences if they try hard.
I am imagining the armed wing of the CoE aggressively giving people cups of weak tea and crumbly biscuits, while dressed in black pyjamas...
And, when finally and happily eradicated from the the face of the earth the CoE will still be serving weak instant coffee.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No, it's not Anglican. Like being in the British Commonwealth doesn't make (say) Barbados British. That's the error HYUFD is making.
Yes it is Anglican, because it is part of the Anglican Communion and uses Anglican practice, including the Book of Common Prayer.
Barbados however does not follow British law despite being in the Commonwealth and that was the case even when the Monarch was its head of state never mind when it is now only in the Commonwealth
Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.
Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.
Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.
If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
Yes, but the point is, they are now in a worse position than when we were in the EU
Don't be mean. HY knows more about fishing than these fishermen.
Can't help wondering how relevant is an 18 month old whinge in the Guardian, in a situation which has changed rapidly.
It has changed rapidly. For worse, not better.
Salmon exporters won't agree with you, for one group.
Salmon exports to the EU are running at record levels, and the value of fish being landed by UK fishermen is up by around 15% 2020 to 2021.
For the pieces I questions, there were organisations on both sides of the debate. You can find pieces from similar organisations documenting things improving.
The G chose the ones that fitted the line they wanted to take, as is the case for almost all of our newspapers, and particularly that one.
We won't know where we are until we have a no-Covid year, and as the new rules setup develops.
To quote: “ The figures for the United Kingdom are distorted by a change in the method of data collection.”
Apparently, the Guardian and FT who love this graph either read that caveat and decided not to relate it to their readers, or did not read it. Not sure which is more worrying.
It's the UK figures for January 2022 (+2.5%) which the commentary notes are distorted, shirley?
Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.
Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.
Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.
If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
Yes, but the point is, they are now in a worse position than when we were in the EU
Don't be mean. HY knows more about fishing than these fishermen.
Can't help wondering how relevant is an 18 month old whinge in the Guardian, in a situation which has changed rapidly.
It has changed rapidly. For worse, not better.
Salmon exporters won't agree with you, for one group.
Salmon exports to the EU are running at record levels, and the value of fish being landed by UK fishermen is up by around 15% 2020 to 2021.
For the pieces I questions, there were organisations on both sides of the debate. You can find pieces from similar organisations documenting things improving.
The G chose the ones that fitted the line they wanted to take, as is the case for almost all of our newspapers, and particularly that one.
We won't know where we are until we have a no-Covid year, and as the new rules setup develops.
To quote: “ The figures for the United Kingdom are distorted by a change in the method of data collection.”
Apparently, the Guardian and FT who love this graph either read that caveat and decided not to relate it to their readers, or did not read it. Not sure which is more worrying.
In the spirit of Malmesbury, I didn't know that, but fair enough. I still think it's right to say that Brexit has caused *some* trade disruptions, but I guess we can't know the true figures yet.
And NUPES has hit the front in PV. Now on 25.6% to 25.2% for Macron. Can see who leads seats. But there doesn't seem to be a running total of second places. So isn't easy to know how many candidates each will have for Round 2. Btw. It used to be you made the Second Round by getting 12.5% of the vote. By haggling, and convention, the majority of third places dropped out. Any idea if this is still so? Because. I see quite a few places with wafer thin close top three.
Looks like Macron should however win most seats in round 2 with centre right support and the centre right and Le Pen's party combined could still be bigger than the left block of Melenchon and the Socialists too
So @HYUFD has done his usual by bogging us down with a completely tangential argument.
So let's get back to the original issue. @HYUFD you are wrong because I can name not just one but three democratic republics that don't entirely confiscate inheritances namely USA, France and Italy. Do you accept this is correct and that I could go on to name more and therefore the statement you made was wrong.
No I don't. As I already said the US republic was created on opposition to no taxation without representation from the King's government. Not opposition to the hereditary principle.
That was more a concept in Russia and France when the radical revolutionaries did indeed confiscate inherited private property after removing the monarch, both initially with elected governments
So if you can create a republic without being opposed to hereditary property rights, why are you pretending that creating a republic means opposing hereditary property rights? You're literally arguing against yourself you absolute spoon.
Jeremy Hunt is trying to “woo Tory MPs” by pledging to scrap the Irish Sea trade border.
Surely we can only do that by rejoining the Single Market?
Or by adopting May's backstop. Or by inventing a digital border.
As has been noted before, Hunt is Theresa May in trousers. As I said recently too Hunt as PM and Tory leader would dump Boris' Deal and return to May's Deal, as Starmer is also moving towards a May+ Brexit Deal there would therefore be no real difference between the 2 main parties on Brexit (with the LDs taking an even more pro EU/EEA approach) and Farage would see his chance
Your basic problem is that the oven-ready Brexit deal doesn't work. Whether or not we actually get another "lets break international law" law published tomorrow, tweaks won't cut it.
Eventually you lot will have to start to listening to business. To farmers. To exporters. And remember that you used to stand for free trade and cutting red tape.
Business also wanted the opportunity to have less EU regulation and free trade deals which Boris' Deal delivered.
If voters want more EU regulation again then they can vote for Starmer Labour and the LDs at the next general election, that is democracy. On Brexit Boris offers a choice not an echo!
Lol less regulations. You have never exported or imported anything have you?
I work for a British exporter (a leader in its field). I have colleagues who voted Leave now opening saying that they'd have voted Remain had they foreseen the avalanche of red tape that Brexit would impose upon them. In short: Brexit is now no sort of vote winner.
Didn't pretty much all Fishermen and most Farmers vote Leave? Can't imagine they would have if they knew what would happen.
Fishermen are out of the CFP as they voted for and able to catch more of their own catch in their own waters
Yes, but the point is, they are now in a worse position than when we were in the EU
Don't be mean. HY knows more about fishing than these fishermen.
Can't help wondering how relevant is an 18 month old whinge in the Guardian, in a situation which has changed rapidly.
It has changed rapidly. For worse, not better.
Salmon exporters won't agree with you, for one group.
Salmon exports to the EU are running at record levels, and the value of fish being landed by UK fishermen is up by around 15% 2020 to 2021.
For the pieces I questions, there were organisations on both sides of the debate. You can find pieces from similar organisations documenting things improving.
The G chose the ones that fitted the line they wanted to take, as is the case for almost all of our newspapers, and particularly that one.
We won't know where we are until we have a no-Covid year, and as the new rules setup develops.
To quote: “ The figures for the United Kingdom are distorted by a change in the method of data collection.”
Apparently, the Guardian and FT who love this graph either read that caveat and decided not to relate it to their readers, or did not read it. Not sure which is more worrying.
It's the UK figures for January 2022 (+2.5%) which the commentary notes are distorted, shirley?
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No, it's not Anglican. Like being in the British Commonwealth doesn't make (say) Barbados British. That's the error HYUFD is making.
Yes it is Anglican, because it is part of the Anglican Communion and uses Anglican practice, including the Book of Common Prayer.
Barbados however does not follow British law despite being in the Commonwealth and that was the case even when the Monarch was its head of state never mind when it is now only in the Commonwealth
But the Piskies have never been part of the Anglican Church, even if they use some of the same holy books. You're just pretending a common unity that never existed.
On the other hand, the British Crown most certainly implemented and controlled the legal system in Barbados to begin with.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
'Anglican' is not a reasonable description, as they were and are in different countries altogether. Episcopalian, yes, but under the KIng of Scotland or ENgland as appropriate [edit]. The Piskies and the C of E were never merged.
Anglican IS a reasonable description as it includes all churches within the Anglican communion, far more than just the C of E
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
The CoE utterly despised the Piskies, until the late Victorian period. Preposterous to claim them as “Anglican”.
I'm also struck by the notion that Jamie Seventh's and BPC's screwups are to blame for the C19 Irish famine, the mass migration to the Central Belt, and the establishment of RC congregations of the new proles in the mines and factories.
Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to England too, see Liverpool
You obviously don't think the Gordon Riots went far enough.
Time to plug Barnaby Rudge, Dickens's unread masterpiece about the Gordon riots. Wonderful - up with his best. Rarely meet people who know it.
So @HYUFD has done his usual by bogging us down with a completely tangential argument.
So let's get back to the original issue. @HYUFD you are wrong because I can name not just one but three democratic republics that don't entirely confiscate inheritances namely USA, France and Italy. Do you accept this is correct and that I could go on to name more and therefore the statement you made was wrong.
No I don't. As I already said the US republic was created on opposition to no taxation without representation from the King's government. Not opposition to the hereditary principle.
That was more a concept in Russia and France when the radical revolutionaries did indeed confiscate inherited private property after removing the monarch, both initially with elected governments
So if you can create a republic without being opposed to hereditary property rights, why are you pretending that creating a republic means opposing hereditary property rights? You're literally arguing against yourself you absolute spoon.
As that was the argument TSE used, I did not say it was a compulsory argument for a republic
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
'Anglican' is not a reasonable description, as they were and are in different countries altogether. Episcopalian, yes, but under the KIng of Scotland or ENgland as appropriate [edit]. The Piskies and the C of E were never merged.
Anglican IS a reasonable description as it includes all churches within the Anglican communion, far more than just the C of E
But you are using it to claim a spurious identity that never existed before the vague umbrella of the more recent Anglican communion. In contrast, Barbados was far more firmly part of the British empire.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
The CoE utterly despised the Piskies, until the late Victorian period. Preposterous to claim them as “Anglican”.
I'm also struck by the notion that Jamie Seventh's and BPC's screwups are to blame for the C19 Irish famine, the mass migration to the Central Belt, and the establishment of RC congregations of the new proles in the mines and factories.
Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to England too, see Liverpool
You obviously don't think the Gordon Riots went far enough.
Time to plug Barnaby Rudge, Dickens's unread masterpiece about the Gordon riots. Wonderful - up with his best. Rarely meet people who know it.
Mm, that's interesting - will bear in mind. THanks.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No, it's not Anglican. Like being in the British Commonwealth doesn't make (say) Barbados British. That's the error HYUFD is making.
Yes it is Anglican, because it is part of the Anglican Communion and uses Anglican practice, including the Book of Common Prayer.
Barbados however does not follow British law despite being in the Commonwealth and that was the case even when the Monarch was its head of state never mind when it is now only in the Commonwealth
But the Piskies have never been part of the Anglican Church, even if they use some of the same holy books. You're just pretending a common unity that never existed.
On the other hand, the British Crown most certainly implemented and controlled the legal system in Barbados to begin with.
Yes they are, they are part of the Anglican communion and always have been Anglican in doctrine.
Being an Anglican church does not require at all being an established church as only the Church of England is in the Anglican communion but the Church of England is the strongest Anglican church percentage wise in the western world certainly by far
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No, it's not Anglican. Like being in the British Commonwealth doesn't make (say) Barbados British. That's the error HYUFD is making.
Yes it is Anglican, because it is part of the Anglican Communion and uses Anglican practice, including the Book of Common Prayer.
Barbados however does not follow British law despite being in the Commonwealth and that was the case even when the Monarch was its head of state never mind when it is now only in the Commonwealth
But the Piskies have never been part of the Anglican Church, even if they use some of the same holy books. You're just pretending a common unity that never existed.
On the other hand, the British Crown most certainly implemented and controlled the legal system in Barbados to begin with.
Yes they are, they are part of the Anglican communion and always have been Anglican in doctrine.
Being an Anglican church does not require at all being an established church as only the Church of England is in the Anglican communion but the Church of England is the strongest Anglican church percentage wise in the western world certainly by far
I said CHURCH, not COMMUNION.
It's like the difference between a state and the Commonwealth.
Macron's party doing better than expected in Round 1 of the legislative elections - tied with the left on 25.9%. Le Pen's RN on 18.9, the centre-right on 11.4.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
The CoE utterly despised the Piskies, until the late Victorian period. Preposterous to claim them as “Anglican”.
I'm also struck by the notion that Jamie Seventh's and BPC's screwups are to blame for the C19 Irish famine, the mass migration to the Central Belt, and the establishment of RC congregations of the new proles in the mines and factories.
Plenty of Irish Catholics moved to England too, see Liverpool
You obviously don't think the Gordon Riots went far enough.
Time to plug Barnaby Rudge, Dickens's unread masterpiece about the Gordon riots. Wonderful - up with his best. Rarely meet people who know it.
Fascinating to see people telling the Scottish Episcopal Church that they aren't Anglican, when they are in the Anglican Communion with all the other Anglicans, and say so themselves.
Pesky Piskies thinking for themselves. How dare they ! .
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No, it's not Anglican. Like being in the British Commonwealth doesn't make (say) Barbados British. That's the error HYUFD is making.
Yes it is Anglican, because it is part of the Anglican Communion and uses Anglican practice, including the Book of Common Prayer.
Barbados however does not follow British law despite being in the Commonwealth and that was the case even when the Monarch was its head of state never mind when it is now only in the Commonwealth
But the Piskies have never been part of the Anglican Church, even if they use some of the same holy books. You're just pretending a common unity that never existed.
On the other hand, the British Crown most certainly implemented and controlled the legal system in Barbados to begin with.
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No, it's not Anglican. Like being in the British Commonwealth doesn't make (say) Barbados British. That's the error HYUFD is making.
Yes it is Anglican, because it is part of the Anglican Communion and uses Anglican practice, including the Book of Common Prayer.
Barbados however does not follow British law despite being in the Commonwealth and that was the case even when the Monarch was its head of state never mind when it is now only in the Commonwealth
But the Piskies have never been part of the Anglican Church, even if they use some of the same holy books. You're just pretending a common unity that never existed.
On the other hand, the British Crown most certainly implemented and controlled the legal system in Barbados to begin with.
Yes they are, they are part of the Anglican communion and always have been Anglican in doctrine.
Being an Anglican church does not require at all being an established church as only the Church of England is in the Anglican communion but the Church of England is the strongest Anglican church percentage wise in the western world certainly by far
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
HYUFD is correct on this particular point:
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries. https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
No, it's not Anglican. Like being in the British Commonwealth doesn't make (say) Barbados British. That's the error HYUFD is making.
Yes it is Anglican, because it is part of the Anglican Communion and uses Anglican practice, including the Book of Common Prayer.
Barbados however does not follow British law despite being in the Commonwealth and that was the case even when the Monarch was its head of state never mind when it is now only in the Commonwealth
But the Piskies have never been part of the Anglican Church, even if they use some of the same holy books. You're just pretending a common unity that never existed.
On the other hand, the British Crown most certainly implemented and controlled the legal system in Barbados to begin with.
Yes they are, they are part of the Anglican communion and always have been Anglican in doctrine.
Being an Anglican church does not require at all being an established church as only the Church of England is in the Anglican communion but the Church of England is the strongest Anglican church percentage wise in the western world certainly by far
What do you mean by percentage wise.
Percentage of members of the religious population wise
Macron's party doing better than expected in Round 1 of the legislative elections - tied with the left on 25.9%. Le Pen's RN on 18.9, the centre-right on 11.4.
Le Pen's party now ahead in only 14 fewer seats than Melenchon's block, a smaller gap than the 16 more seats Macron's party is now ahead in compared to Melenchon's.
The French legislative elections round 1 have turned out pretty much as the polls expected with NUPES and Ensemble tied at just under 26% each. National Rally (RN) have again underperformed with just 19% with Les Republicans and the other centre-right parties on 11.4%.
On then to round two and there are plenty of constituencies where RN have the lead but either Ensemble or NUPES are sitting second and could well overhaul the RN lead. The seat projections still have Ensemble at 300 seats and NUPES at 200 so Ensemble better placed to turn second places into wins than NUPES in terms of getting transfer votes from other parties.
We'll see during the week if Melenchon can make his bloc more "transfer friendly".
The French legislative elections round 1 have turned out pretty much as the polls expected with NUPES and Ensemble tied at just under 26% each. National Rally (RN) have again underperformed with just 19% with Les Republicans and the other centre-right parties on 11.4%.
On then to round two and there are plenty of constituencies where RN have the lead but either Ensemble or NUPES are sitting second and could well overhaul the RN lead. The seat projections still have Ensemble at 300 seats and NUPES at 200 so Ensemble better placed to turn second places into wins than NUPES in terms of getting transfer votes from other parties.
We'll see during the week if Melenchon can make his bloc more "transfer friendly".
19% is spot on what the final poll was giving RN and also still 6% more than Le Pen's party got in 2017.
There has been a swing from the centre right, who have plunged from second in 2017 to 4th, to Le Pen's party and Macron's party but also a swing from Macron's party to Melenchon's block
Macron's party doing better than expected in Round 1 of the legislative elections - tied with the left on 25.9%. Le Pen's RN on 18.9, the centre-right on 11.4.
Le Pen's party now ahead in only 14 fewer seats than Melenchon's block, a smaller gap than the 16 more seats Macron's party is now ahead in compared to Melenchon's.
The question is who is sitting second in those seats where RN leads and whether the second place candidate can garner enough votes from other parties to overhaul the RN lead.
Macron's party doing better than expected in Round 1 of the legislative elections - tied with the left on 25.9%. Le Pen's RN on 18.9, the centre-right on 11.4.
Where did you get those figures from? Le Monde hasn't updated vote share for nearly an hour. Have been struggling to find any others.
The French legislative elections round 1 have turned out pretty much as the polls expected with NUPES and Ensemble tied at just under 26% each. National Rally (RN) have again underperformed with just 19% with Les Republicans and the other centre-right parties on 11.4%.
On then to round two and there are plenty of constituencies where RN have the lead but either Ensemble or NUPES are sitting second and could well overhaul the RN lead. The seat projections still have Ensemble at 300 seats and NUPES at 200 so Ensemble better placed to turn second places into wins than NUPES in terms of getting transfer votes from other parties.
We'll see during the week if Melenchon can make his bloc more "transfer friendly".
The other question is, of course, turnout. It has been dire again. Sub 50%. If it is made a referendum on Macron, we could see higher in round two. And some unexpected transfers. Btw. You do only need 12.5% to make the second round. It isn't as simple as "top two". There will be a few days of negotiation between Parties and candidates about stepping aside. Melenchon may have strong bargaining power as his candidates look to be over that bar almost everywhere. As indeed are Macron's. The Right is more split. Well that's from a cursory look.
The question: "Do you have experience of buying solely in imperial units?" is poorly written but can surely only mean "can you remember when we only used imperial measures?".
Any other interpretation is nonsense.
Ha yes you are right, and it’s a terribly worded question.
Or it could mean illegal drugs, which are sold purely in Imperial units.
The question: "Do you have experience of buying solely in imperial units?" is poorly written but can surely only mean "can you remember when we only used imperial measures?".
Any other interpretation is nonsense.
Ha yes you are right, and it’s a terribly worded question.
Or it could mean illegal drugs, which are sold purely in Imperial units.
The question: "Do you have experience of buying solely in imperial units?" is poorly written but can surely only mean "can you remember when we only used imperial measures?".
Any other interpretation is nonsense.
Ha yes you are right, and it’s a terribly worded question.
Or it could mean illegal drugs, which are sold purely in Imperial units.
The other question is, of course, turnout. It has been dire again. Sub 50%. If it is made a referendum on Macron, we could see higher in round two. And some unexpected transfers. Btw. You do only need 12.5% to make the second round. It isn't as simple as "top two". There will be a few days of negotiation between Parties and candidates about stepping aside. Melenchon may have strong bargaining power as his candidates look to be over that bar almost everywhere. As indeed are Macron's. The Right is more split. Well that's from a cursory look.
Last time, four candidates won outright in Round 1 (Le Pen has done so this time) - of the remaining 573 seats, 572 were duels and just one had three candidates (known as a triangulaire).
I wonder how it will work out this time - more seats with three candidates in round two perhaps?
The question: "Do you have experience of buying solely in imperial units?" is poorly written but can surely only mean "can you remember when we only used imperial measures?".
Any other interpretation is nonsense.
Ha yes you are right, and it’s a terribly worded question.
Or it could mean illegal drugs, which are sold purely in Imperial units.
You never bought a gram?
No I certainly have not.
Coke comes in grams. Weed and hash imperial. Interestingly. Last time I was in Holland the standard measure was 3.5 grams. Which is an Imperial eighth of an ounce. Rather like our 454 grams of mince. But in reverse.
The French legislative elections round 1 have turned out pretty much as the polls expected with NUPES and Ensemble tied at just under 26% each. National Rally (RN) have again underperformed with just 19% with Les Republicans and the other centre-right parties on 11.4%.
On then to round two and there are plenty of constituencies where RN have the lead but either Ensemble or NUPES are sitting second and could well overhaul the RN lead. The seat projections still have Ensemble at 300 seats and NUPES at 200 so Ensemble better placed to turn second places into wins than NUPES in terms of getting transfer votes from other parties.
We'll see during the week if Melenchon can make his bloc more "transfer friendly".
The other question is, of course, turnout. It has been dire again. Sub 50%. If it is made a referendum on Macron, we could see higher in round two. And some unexpected transfers. Btw. You do only need 12.5% to make the second round. It isn't as simple as "top two". There will be a few days of negotiation between Parties and candidates about stepping aside. Melenchon may have strong bargaining power as his candidates look to be over that bar almost everywhere. As indeed are Macron's. The Right is more split. Well that's from a cursory look.
It's 12.5% of the electorate not those voting, so the very low turnout makes a third place candidate much less likely to qualify for the second round next Sunday.
The other question is, of course, turnout. It has been dire again. Sub 50%. If it is made a referendum on Macron, we could see higher in round two. And some unexpected transfers. Btw. You do only need 12.5% to make the second round. It isn't as simple as "top two". There will be a few days of negotiation between Parties and candidates about stepping aside. Melenchon may have strong bargaining power as his candidates look to be over that bar almost everywhere. As indeed are Macron's. The Right is more split. Well that's from a cursory look.
Last time, four candidates won outright in Round 1 (Le Pen has done so this time) - of the remaining 573 seats, 572 were duels and just one had three candidates (known as a triangulaire).
I wonder how it will work out this time - more seats with three candidates in round two perhaps?
I have spotted a few which are achingly close between the top three. Certainly some could make the case for third being favourite on transfers. There are three reasonably equal blocs nationally. Tough to see the Left winning from third. But not inconceivable the other two could in particular circumstances.
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
The French legislative elections round 1 have turned out pretty much as the polls expected with NUPES and Ensemble tied at just under 26% each. National Rally (RN) have again underperformed with just 19% with Les Republicans and the other centre-right parties on 11.4%.
On then to round two and there are plenty of constituencies where RN have the lead but either Ensemble or NUPES are sitting second and could well overhaul the RN lead. The seat projections still have Ensemble at 300 seats and NUPES at 200 so Ensemble better placed to turn second places into wins than NUPES in terms of getting transfer votes from other parties.
We'll see during the week if Melenchon can make his bloc more "transfer friendly".
The other question is, of course, turnout. It has been dire again. Sub 50%. If it is made a referendum on Macron, we could see higher in round two. And some unexpected transfers. Btw. You do only need 12.5% to make the second round. It isn't as simple as "top two". There will be a few days of negotiation between Parties and candidates about stepping aside. Melenchon may have strong bargaining power as his candidates look to be over that bar almost everywhere. As indeed are Macron's. The Right is more split. Well that's from a cursory look.
It's 12.5% of the electorate not those voting, so the very low turnout makes a third place candidate much less likely to qualify for the second round next Sunday.
Good point. I hadn't twigged that bit. Am using my 35 year old French in my defence!
The anti hereditary argument is of course absurd, we have hereditary members of the House of Lords still, hereditary farmers on the family farm, hereditary directors of family businesses etc. Being a republic does not automatically guarantee no hereditary Presidents either as the Bushes and Assads would confirm. We have had father and son PMs before too eg Pitt the elder and Pitt the younger. Richard Cromwell of course guaranteed the restoration of the monarchy not its end.
Prince Charles is also quite entitled to his views as Prince of Wales as king as long as he does not veto and refuse to sign legislation passed by Parliament as King. There is no evidence he would, when interviewed by Jonathan Dimbleby he made clear he was not stupid enough not to see the distinction between being Prince of Wales and sovereign.
As for the Queen's saying to Scottish well wishers to 'think carefully' about their vote before the referendum that was entirely correct in accordance with her coronation vow to defend the United Kingdom and serve its people in all the home nations. Even if the non Tory, Liberal voting TSE suggests otherwise.
The question of a referendum on the monarchy is of course out of the question, no Tory leader could do so and not be removed and even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy having replaced the republican Corbyn. In any case, when Charles becomes King most likely on current polls Starmer would have become PM anyway so Johnson will live out the remainder of his premiership as the chief minister of Queen Elizabeth IInd, who he greatly respects and admires. Probably suits them both, the Queen is ideologically a one nation Tory who would probably have voted for Brexit. Charles is a green LD who almost certainly would have voted Remain and would get on better with Sir Keir than Boris
Nobody thinks farm ownership should be decided by free and fair elections.
Hardcore socialists would confiscate all privately owned property and inherited wealth and redistribute it if they won an election, therefore including privately owned farms
Which is different from what I said, so yet another pointlessly stupid comment from you.
No it isn't, as if a free and fair election elected a hardcore socialist government then privately owned farms could well be confiscated and taken by the State
That's not having an election about who owns a particular farm for fuck's sake. We have hereditary property rights not property elections, and nobody is proposing we have elections to decide who gets private ownership of a farm or a bank balance or anything else. It's really fucking obvious that private property ownership is a totally different category to who is the head of state.
Since you're being so painfully stupid and I have to draw this out in giant crayon letters for you to read it, here's what we're talking about 1. The thing is held by a person and passed on to their children 2. The thing is held by a person and passed on following an election 3. The thing doesn't exist.
Now when we're talking about property, communists want to move from 1 to 3. When we're talking about who is the head of state, republicans want to move from 1 to 2.
I've never ever heard of anyone proposing (2) for property.
Property: 1. Nearly everybody 2. (I've never heard of this idea) 3. Communism
Head of state: 1. Monarchists 2. Republicans 3. Anarchists
So, to reiterate, private property and head of state are two different things, and the people advocating republicanism are not arguing against all forms of heredity. Your attempt to lump all forms of heredity into a single all-or-nothing package is clearly completely mad, and a glance at the huge number of people who live in capitalist republics ought to tell you that.
Republicans want to confiscate all royal properties, crown owned or privately owned by the monarch and take them for the state. There is no real distinction from that to then confiscating all inherited wealth, businesses and property either.
It is no surprise republicans in the UK tend to most frequently be socialists too therefore. I was arguing against TSE's statement that the monarchy should be removed as it is hereditary, which is an absurd argument as it therefore means arguing against anything obtained on a hereditary basis.
The US never had a monarch based in America so that is a different matter entirely, the French and Russian revolutions however certainly abolished the monarchy and then took their property for the state and that was followed by the French revolutionaries taking all aristocrats property and the Russian revolutionaries going further and taking all private property for the state too. So very often replacing the monarchy has meant confiscating hereditary private property on a wider basis too
So let's get this straight. You are saying that there is no real distinction between republicanism and all inheritance being confiscated by the state, because I don't know of any republican democracy where that happens.
As I already pointed out that happened in Russia once the monarchy went
And did you miss the words 'republican democracy'. Now name one.
The US and France, both nations bitterly divided where half the country nearly always loathes their head of state as they did not vote for them.
Half the ceremonial Presidents are not elected by the voters anyway directly but by the legislature while also being anonymous nonentities unlike our royal family who have global recognition
Sorry what has that to do with the question.
I am waiting for you to name a republican democracy that confiscates all inheritances like you claimed.
Go on name one.
Go on I'm waiting. So far you have come up with Russia after the revolution (not a democracy) then some wild moving of the goal post with France and USA mentioned.
Everything with a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle like TSE's and Russian communists.
Ok you still haven't named a republican democracy that consficates all inheritance.
You made this claim so please name one. Just one will do.
Go on name one.
TSE's argument against the monarchy was it is hereditary.
Therefore the Russian Communist Republic that replaced the Russian monarchy and confiscated all private property in Russia is as fine an example as any as to why a republican argument based on opposition to the hereditary principle is wrong.
In any case the Russian government after the Revolution was elected initially anyway, the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries between them winning 75% of the vote to the State Duma in November 1917
Why should you need to? Well because you said it was the same thing, yet you can't name one Republican democracy that does it.
I just did, the elected Socialist and Bolshevik government of Russia which in late 1917 ruled Russia after the Tsar's abdication earlier that year
Lol I know you think the current Russia is a democracy, but now you are claiming communist Russia was a democracy.
Then of course there is an endless list of real democratic countries who are republics and don't confiscate all inheritances (all of them actually).
You really are desperate.
It is nearly as bonkers as his contention that without the Queen as head of the Church, we would all become Catholics.
The established Catholic Church, currently the Church of England, would by definition then revert to the authority of the Pope yes
But you spent a lot of energy not so long ago denying that the C of E was in any way Catholic, despite the statement on its own website. I really am confused now.
See also Scotland where the Roman Catholic church now has more adherents than the Anglican Scottish Episcopal Church. The Anglican church being a Catholic and Apostolic church
The Scottish Episcopal Church is not Anglican - they are sister churches. And the Piskies have been a very small denomination since the 1680s.
Clue: the Presbyterian ChurchES dominated. Not like in England.
Yes it is, it is a member of the Anglican communion alongside the C of E. The Presbyterian Church is not Anglican. Percentage wise therefore there are more Roman Catholics under Papal authority in Scotland than in England. Largely because the Scottish Anglican church is not established, so more have ended up owing their allegience to Rome instead of the Queen
There is no such thing as a Scottish Anglican church. That is an extraordinary distortion of ecclesiastical history. Vide Charles I, Laud, and the Wars of the Covenant on precisely that issue.
As for the rest - your ignorance of Scottish history shines through. Not least because the Presbyterian Kirk was established till 1923.
Yes there is. The SEP has bishops and is a Catholic church in the global Anglican communion but not an established church like the C of E
But it is not Anglican in itself, in the sense that the C of E is.
Yes it is, it is as Anglican as the C of E, just not an established church like the C of E
No, it's not. The whole point is that the C of E is an Erastian, heretical institution subordinated to the state. The Piskies are not.
It is undeniable that the Piskies are part of the Anglican communion today. The church upon which Charles sought to impose the prayer book of 1637 - which was somewhat more 'high church' than the English form- was episcopal, not Roman Catholic and therefore 'Anglican' is a reasonable description of it.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
'Anglican' is not a reasonable description, as they were and are in different countries altogether. Episcopalian, yes, but under the KIng of Scotland or ENgland as appropriate [edit]. The Piskies and the C of E were never merged.
Anglican IS a reasonable description as it includes all churches within the Anglican communion, far more than just the C of E
But you are using it to claim a spurious identity that never existed before the vague umbrella of the more recent Anglican communion. In contrast, Barbados was far more firmly part of the British empire.
ISTM that the main point is what the Scottish Episcopal Church describes itself as, which has been discussed.
I'm not even sure where this stuff about "never merged never the Church of England" comes from, or why it is relevant.
The Anglican Communion is a community of churches, not a church itself. What it means is found on its website.
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
In a year's time Brexit will be a bigger shitshow than it is now
Macron's party doing better than expected in Round 1 of the legislative elections - tied with the left on 25.9%. Le Pen's RN on 18.9, the centre-right on 11.4.
Where did you get those figures from? Le Monde hasn't updated vote share for nearly an hour. Have been struggling to find any others.
Le Figaro, I think it was. But I can't find recently updated ones either.
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
"Come back in a year's time - nothing will have improved but we'll have one less year of Tory misrule still to endure".
What else can he say, though? "It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test. "We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test. "The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
On the other hand, David Davis is pretty free to speak his own mind these days.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
If this is the remainer’s Brexit, perhaps we could switch to a leaver’s Brexit that involves membership of the single market.
Just for clarity - HYUFD is arguing that changing to a Republic would end up entailing mass confiscation of all private property and adoption of USSR-style communism?
It’s a stance, I suppose, but why even bother arguing with him?
Arguing is either to change his mind (he won’t, for some bizarre reason he seems to view that as a weakness), or to change others’ minds (unnecessary; his stance is so absurd no-one else would countenance it).
“We have a Remainers Brexit”, says arch charlatan David Davis. He absolutely denies the evidence of the huge damage to 🇬🇧 economy, and refuses to take ANY responsibility for the disaster he and his lying acolytes brought on their own country. Shameful.
I wondered when this would start, there will never be any responsibility because people will always pretend there is some fantasy Brexit which is amazing but it's always been thwarted.
This thread is classic HY. While getting deeper and deeper into two ridiculous arguments (the Anglican Church seizes all private property, wasn't it?), he still finds time to post useful updates on the French elections.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
In a year's time he will likely say something along the lines of "It is too early to tell yet because of [something or other]. We need more time"
In truth, they will NEVER be able to have a tangible benefit of Brexit because there are none. Except blue(ish) passports and the ability to ignore any EU legislation that prevents you from filling your sycophants' bank accounts....
Comments
Apart from that it is, as you say, not hard.
Therefore, the SRs and Bolsheviks actually were arguably showing more respect for private property than the Tsar did.
You seem unable to grasp this.
Never collected Airmiles?
https://www.lemonde.fr/resultats-elections/#google
And only the divine right and sanction of the C of E - which is conveniently headed by the same monarch.
1. Yes, but also buy 25ml nips of whisky there too
2. Nope, are they still a thing?
Are you saying you are happy with fraud as long as the proceeds of that fraud are hereditary?
There is a reason land was singled out as something to be seized by the state and redistributed when other things mostly were not.
So let's get back to the original issue. @HYUFD you are wrong because I can name not just one but three democratic republics that don't entirely confiscate inheritances namely USA, France and Italy. Do you accept this is correct and that I could go on to name more and therefore the statement you made was wrong.
As I said - they admit when they're wrong.
As he has yet again demonstrated on multiple issues tonight - he doesn't.
Good night.
The only difference is the Church of England has a few Bishops in the Lords and the monarch as its Supreme Governor
https://www.cpb.nl/en/world-trade-monitor-january-2022
To quote: “ The figures for the United Kingdom are distorted by a change in the method of data collection.”
Apparently, the Guardian and FT who love this graph either read that caveat and decided not to relate it to their readers, or did not read it. Not sure which is more worrying.
Any other interpretation is nonsense.
Here's the website of the Scottish Episcopal Church confirming that it is Anglican:
Firmly rooted in the life of Scotland and part of its rich history, the Scottish Episcopal Church is also deeply committed to its membership of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which is a family of over 70 million Christians in more than 160 countries.
https://www.scotland.anglican.org/who-we-are/about-us/introduction/
Being "established" is not definitive in identifying "Anglican". The definitive element is "in Communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury", and - lessly - perhaps the Lambeth Quadrilateral.
Can see who leads seats. But there doesn't seem to be a running total of second places. So isn't easy to know how many candidates each will have for Round 2.
Btw. It used to be you made the Second Round by getting 12.5% of the vote. By haggling, and convention, the majority of third places dropped out. Any idea if this is still so?
Because. I see quite a few places with wafer thin close top three.
The Holodomor and worse. I'd personally argue my life was my most valuable possession. And they took millions of lives.
Yes. I was simply disagreeing with the narrow point that HYUFD said that they seized "all" private property on taking power, as an example of what far-left governments would do if elected. There are of course more recent examples of far-left governments not seizing all private property - Allende's government, for example.
As to spot the heretic today, each to his or her own. The Piskies marry gays and have dropped the Filioque clause in the creed. Neither of these steps command much backing in the western church generally. (Heresy hunting is not a good idea).
That was more a concept in Russia and France when the radical revolutionaries did indeed confiscate inherited private property after removing the monarch, both initially with elected governments
Reasonably useless caveat without answers to those questions, since it could be assumed to be major, trivial, positive, negative, not covering most of the period in question or anything else.
Barbados however does not follow British law despite being in the Commonwealth and that was the case even when the Monarch was its head of state never mind when it is now only in the Commonwealth
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jun/12/google-engineer-ai-bot-sentient-blake-lemoine
Here’s some data from a different source:
On the other hand, the British Crown most certainly implemented and controlled the legal system in Barbados to begin with.
Being an Anglican church does not require at all being an established church as only the Church of England is in the Anglican communion but the Church of England is the strongest Anglican church percentage wise in the western world certainly by far
I said CHURCH, not COMMUNION.
It's like the difference between a state and the Commonwealth.
Pesky Piskies thinking for themselves. How dare they !
One of the great comedy sketches featuring John Cleese and Marty Feldman.
The French legislative elections round 1 have turned out pretty much as the polls expected with NUPES and Ensemble tied at just under 26% each. National Rally (RN) have again underperformed with just 19% with Les Republicans and the other centre-right parties on 11.4%.
On then to round two and there are plenty of constituencies where RN have the lead but either Ensemble or NUPES are sitting second and could well overhaul the RN lead. The seat projections still have Ensemble at 300 seats and NUPES at 200 so Ensemble better placed to turn second places into wins than NUPES in terms of getting transfer votes from other parties.
We'll see during the week if Melenchon can make his bloc more "transfer friendly".
There has been a swing from the centre right, who have plunged from second in 2017 to 4th, to Le Pen's party and Macron's party but also a swing from Macron's party to Melenchon's block
https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/legislatives-2022/legislatives-ensemble-et-nupes-au-coude-coude-faible-participation-attendue
The question is the degree to which RN can build on that vote in Round Two in those seats where it leads or is a strong second.
‘Where is the good news in Brexit?’
Find out what benefits former Brexit Secretary @DavidDavisMP comes up with.
#AndrewNeilShow @afneil https://t.co/CR0KQoe1Nj
It has been dire again. Sub 50%. If it is made a referendum on Macron, we could see higher in round two.
And some unexpected transfers.
Btw. You do only need 12.5% to make the second round. It isn't as simple as "top two".
There will be a few days of negotiation between Parties and candidates about stepping aside.
Melenchon may have strong bargaining power as his candidates look to be over that bar almost everywhere.
As indeed are Macron's. The Right is more split.
Well that's from a cursory look.
I wonder how it will work out this time - more seats with three candidates in round two perhaps?
Interestingly. Last time I was in Holland the standard measure was 3.5 grams. Which is an Imperial eighth of an ounce.
Rather like our 454 grams of mince.
But in reverse.
There are three reasonably equal blocs nationally. Tough to see the Left winning from third. But not inconceivable the other two could in particular circumstances.
"It's all going swimmingly" fails the "grip on reality" test.
"We've got a few decades of sewage to swim through first, like in the Shawshank Redemption on a loop" fails the electability test.
"The thing believed in was a mistake and I'm sorry"... He'd have to be insanely brave to say that.
People with more knowledge of this than me- has any top politician said "I was wrong" and got away with it?
Am using my 35 year old French in my defence!
I'm not even sure where this stuff about "never merged never the Church of England" comes from, or why it is relevant.
The Anglican Communion is a community of churches, not a church itself. What it means is found on its website.
I’m not sure what he means by a “Remainer’s Brexit” - and I’m certainly not going to watch the full interview - but his advice to “come back in a year’s time” is not completely batshit.
Solely comes in pints, everyone knows that.
It’s a stance, I suppose, but why even bother arguing with him?
Arguing is either to change his mind (he won’t, for some bizarre reason he seems to view that as a weakness), or to change others’ minds (unnecessary; his stance is so absurd no-one else would countenance it).
Just have a laugh and move on.
Macron's Party 157
Melenchon's block 112
Le Pen's Party 108
Les Republicains and Centre Right 38
https://www.lemonde.fr/resultats-elections/#google
He absolutely denies the evidence of the huge damage to 🇬🇧 economy, and refuses to take ANY responsibility for the disaster he and his lying acolytes brought on their own country. Shameful.
https://twitter.com/JohnOBrennan2/status/1536077754743005184
I wondered when this would start, there will never be any responsibility because people will always pretend there is some fantasy Brexit which is amazing but it's always been thwarted.
The Anglican Church in Moscow is officially known as "The Benefice of Moscow (St Andrew) with Vladivostock"
https://www.crockford.org.uk/places/24594/the-benefice-of-moscow-(st-andrew)-with-vladivostock
Never complaion that you r parish is too large ...
Don't ever change!
In truth, they will NEVER be able to have a tangible benefit of Brexit because there are none. Except blue(ish) passports and the ability to ignore any EU legislation that prevents you from filling your sycophants' bank accounts....