Howdy, Stranger!

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

What’s King Charles going to say about fracking – politicalbetting.com

2456789

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,799
    Stocky said:

    Cookie said:

    I refuse to sing God Save The King.

    I used to mumble my way through God Save The Queen but nope, God Save The King ain't happening.

    Me too.
    I'm a lot wishy-washier than you on the republican-royalist spectrum, but I can barely bring myself to utter the words 'the king'.
    The Queen was always part of the landscape. Anachronistic, but unthreatening because she had always been there. I don't mind an anachronism. But 'The King' sounds weirdly medieval and Gormenghastly.
    Seems a small thing to be bothered about to me. We'll get used to it after a while and in time reflect how odd 'the queen' sounds.
    It will take some time to get used to the idea of KC rather than QC again. I wonder how many updated their websites.
  • Nigelb said:

    I think he will run again.
    He's enjoying it too much to quit.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1568020355520024576
    Biden does an impression of Republicans trying to take credit for legislation they didn’t vote...

    I'd bloody well hope he enjoys it. 50 years ago today, he was at the business end of his first campaign for Senate, and he's been at or near the heart of political life in Washington DC nearly every day since. It'd be a sad state of affairs if it transpired he didn't enjoy it.

    But he also turns 80 in November, and would be 86 before the end of any second term. That is a real consideration - it doesn't affect his ability to do the things that need to be done, but there's a relentless intensity to governing and campaigning, and it needs careful managing for a man of that age who's health is okay but not exceptional.
  • I am surprised how I feel about yesterday's events. I was expecting to be really, really upset, but I'm not.

    When Prince Phillip died, I cried (*) and was very upset. It was unexpected and shocking, and I felt for the Queen, who had left her companion of so many years.

    But I was almost expecting the Queen to die: she was 96, and growing frail. Then there's the fact she will be back with Phillip (**) and her mum. Then there's the way the news was release yesterday: instead of a sudden "The Queen is dead!" announcement, we had six hours in which to get used to the news, reducing the sheet shock that we had with (say) Diana (***)

    (*) Then again, I cry at the opening of a crisp packet...
    (**) I don't believe in Heaven particularly, but she did, and so does her family.
    (***) Who I did not cry over, oddly.
  • Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    7.59. I wonder what the 8 o'clock headlines will be.
  • Rather puzzled by this:

    The Guardian points out that her reign saw some of the greatest changes in industrial, economic, technical and social development of any era. It says, therefore, that it is difficult to see her name being bestowed, as Queen Victoria's was to the Victorians, as the "defining symbol of an age.

    The Guardian clearly believes that Britain in 1901 was so similar to Britain in 1837 that 'Victorian' is a simple, uncomplicated adjective. They were in Manchester at the time. Didn't they notice what was going on there?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:


    It does feel to me like William would have been a better option if the aim was continuity.

    The Scottish Nationalists wasted Johnson. We republicans can't afford to waste Charles. It's got to be now.
    And, you will blow it.
    No we won't, the window has gone already realistically.

    Had the Queen passed in the 90s then Charles would have provided ample opportunity to abolish the monarchy, but time has moved on since the 90s. Now Charles himself is a grandad and an old man already, just as his Queen was.

    We won't see the likes of the Queen again, we now have a monarchy of geriatrics. Not sure what's coming next, but I don't expect republicanism to get any head of steam - but nor do I expect any future monarch to be as appreciated or loved as The Queen was.
    It's quite possible Charles may say he will step down when he reaches a certain age.
    I think (absent short sudden illness or accident) that is right. We will move to a model of abdication and planned succession. The queen had very particular views about her reign founded largely in religious attitudes that have passed, and on a deep aversion to abdication given the crisis of the 1930s.

    Others do not have that experience or attitude. I don’t believe Charles deep down believes he has been ordained by god to reign until that same god calls him to meet his maker. When even Popes are abdicating now (an office I thought would never move away from ending only in death) I see no reason why the British monarchy will hold out.
    The Dutch, Belgian, Spanish and Japanese monarchs all ascended following abdications. It is indeed common these days.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    Ratters said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:


    It does feel to me like William would have been a better option if the aim was continuity.

    The Scottish Nationalists wasted Johnson. We republicans can't afford to waste Charles. It's got to be now.
    I don't think there are
    1) A high enough proportion of republicans in the UK
    2) Republicans don't hold their views strongly enough to even make it an mainstream political discussion

    The exception would be if Charles is too politically active. But I suspect he'll play the role he's been preparing for his whole life well enough that it's not an issue.

    On the other hand, I suspect other commonwealth countries will become republics over the next few years.
    If Australia isn't a republic within three years I shall be very surprised.
    We should send them Andrew as King
    I get as exasperated with the cheating convicts as the next man, but that's going a bit far.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    Cookie said:

    I refuse to sing God Save The King.

    I used to mumble my way through God Save The Queen but nope, God Save The King ain't happening.

    Me too.
    I'm a lot wishy-washier than you on the republican-royalist spectrum, but I can barely bring myself to utter the words 'the king'.
    The Queen was always part of the landscape. Anachronistic, but unthreatening because she had always been there. I don't mind an anachronism. But 'The King' sounds weirdly medieval and Gormenghastly.
    I’ve noticed a similar sentiment in my family and friends, among people you’d hardly call radical republicans. They can’t get their heads around the idea of a king.

    This could of course reflect subconscious sexism. A queen being a passive, non-threatening mother figure. The idea of a king conveying more power and agency.
  • Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I'm inclined to believe @rcs1000's comment on UK fracking: that it is not economically viable even at current prices, and therefore an irrelevance.
    But there's another aspect to this: energy security. *If* we need gas supplies in the medium term, and gas supplies means buying from abroad, then we're putting ourselves somewhat in Germany's position today (albeit in a lesser way due to North Sea gas).

    How much is energy security worth? How much extra are we willing to pay for our gas to avoid this sort of mess happening again?

    Even if fracking is not economically viable, it may be a wise thing to do.

    (Personally, I'm on the fence about it.)
    Fracking in the UK is a ponzi scheme. Cuadrilla took large amounts of investor money, drilled a lot of wells, shagged communities, and produced only a thimblefull of gas. It isn't a question of "is it economically viable" - it isn't.

    No, this IS about energy security. And "lets go fracking" takes us further from a solution than we are now. It makes our security worse. Truss is only doing so - despite all the detailed factual evidence (from her own Chancellor amongst others) why it is a stupid idea - because the decrepit giffers who voted for her have been told its a magic bullet.
    If its so impossible then it will fail, and it should fail to get investment or the investors will lose their shirts.

    But let them get on with it and try, if they believe in it.

    This thread is surely the first QTWAIN about King Charles, publicly at least King Charles can only say nothing about fracking, or any other issue now, without the blessing of the elected Government. At least if he intends to honour his mother and continue as a constitutional monarch.
  • Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I'm inclined to believe @rcs1000's comment on UK fracking: that it is not economically viable even at current prices, and therefore an irrelevance.
    But there's another aspect to this: energy security. *If* we need gas supplies in the medium term, and gas supplies means buying from abroad, then we're putting ourselves somewhat in Germany's position today (albeit in a lesser way due to North Sea gas).

    How much is energy security worth? How much extra are we willing to pay for our gas to avoid this sort of mess happening again?

    Even if fracking is not economically viable, it may be a wise thing to do.

    (Personally, I'm on the fence about it.)
    Fracking in the UK is a ponzi scheme. Cuadrilla took large amounts of investor money, drilled a lot of wells, shagged communities, and produced only a thimblefull of gas. It isn't a question of "is it economically viable" - it isn't.

    No, this IS about energy security. And "lets go fracking" takes us further from a solution than we are now. It makes our security worse. Truss is only doing so - despite all the detailed factual evidence (from her own Chancellor amongst others) why it is a stupid idea - because the decrepit giffers who voted for her have been told its a magic bullet.
    "decrepit giffers"

    You really are on poor form today and yesterday. And I disagree with the little substance of your post - at least it is not evidenced.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Cookie said:

    I refuse to sing God Save The King.

    I used to mumble my way through God Save The Queen but nope, God Save The King ain't happening.

    Me too.
    I'm a lot wishy-washier than you on the republican-royalist spectrum, but I can barely bring myself to utter the words 'the king'.
    The Queen was always part of the landscape. Anachronistic, but unthreatening because she had always been there. I don't mind an anachronism. But 'The King' sounds weirdly medieval and Gormenghastly.
    Quite. Shades of How do you get to become king? I didn't vote for you...
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446
    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    Are you trying to imply that her opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    That is also a statement that could be atacked bit by bit, but is not worthy of it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    Rather puzzled by this:

    The Guardian points out that her reign saw some of the greatest changes in industrial, economic, technical and social development of any era. It says, therefore, that it is difficult to see her name being bestowed, as Queen Victoria's was to the Victorians, as the "defining symbol of an age.

    The Guardian clearly believes that Britain in 1901 was so similar to Britain in 1837 that 'Victorian' is a simple, uncomplicated adjective. They were in Manchester at the time. Didn't they notice what was going on there?

    Probably not. The Guardian has always been rather myopic about things it doesn't want to see.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    I rather think that the go ahead from Truss might kill fracking quite quickly, as it's no longer possible to imagine we have large reserves of gas cheaply accessible in that manner.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    TOPPING said:

    R4 on atm. Jeez we can't have too much more of this can we? Dear god not a whole day of it and they've cancelled all kinds of events for some unknown idiotic reason including the horse racing which she loved ffs.

    Plus how many more people can they drag up to ask about some Queen anecdote or other only to be told well I can't really talk about that.

    The Queen has died aged 96 after a life of service.

    Let's leave it there shall we.

    I hate to say it but we’ve probably got another 2 weeks of this at least.

    I think you can comfort yourself that I can’t imagine any figure will get the “full works” treatment again. Her passing is the end of an era and I suspect when members of the royal family pass in future it will be much more toned down (taking over the airwaves for that day and the morning and evening schedules of the next then back to normal until the funeral day).
    DIE not bloody pass.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Will that be the oil geologists saying that it is viable? Or the ones who are saying it isn't?

    Sadly too many people are letting their agenda run ahead of them. There is no unanimity on this.
  • I've been a bit slow on this but i reckon HMQ actually died yesterday morning, and possibly even earlier, and doctors are "very concerned and she's under close medical supervision" was code for she's died and had her doctors standing over her with a coroner whilst the process went into effect.

    She 'officially' died only when all her family were there, and they were ready to announce it, but it wasn't at 6.30pm or 4.30pm. It was more like 12.30pm, or possibly in the small hours of the morning since overnight is most likely.

    We will find out more in the coming days and weeks.

    She died at 4.15 according to a journalist I spoke to yesterday, although of course he might have been told something untrue. I would imagine that she had some kind of medical event like a massive stroke earlier in the day from which recovery was impossible. It was clear from what wasn't being said that she was unconscious.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    eristdoof said:

    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    Are you trying to imply that her opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    That is also a statement that could be atacked bit by bit, but is not worthy of it.
    Are you trying to imply that we should give a shit what opinions are widespread in UK universities?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
    No, it's not, because of the claim it's a solution to the widers problem that the UK faces. It's a serious red herring on the route to realistic appraisal, and an excuse for aboilution of planning controls.
  • Anyway, back to business. Parliament is now suspended bar tributes until 21st September, when it is suspended for conference season.

    Which means there is no longer any time to debate the Truss Energy Company Shareholders subsidy. Or scrutinise its details. Or pick apart the bill. Or sign it into law before the 1st October when it has to exist or else the Big Bang cap comes into effect.

    Yes the Queen is dead. But she won't be the first pensioner dying under the Truss government this winter if action is deferred because we're all in mourning or whatever. Pay tributes in the house today, then get back to very very urgent business on Monday.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 47,042

    Nigelb said:

    I think he will run again.
    He's enjoying it too much to quit.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1568020355520024576
    Biden does an impression of Republicans trying to take credit for legislation they didn’t vote...

    I'd bloody well hope he enjoys it. 50 years ago today, he was at the business end of his first campaign for Senate, and he's been at or near the heart of political life in Washington DC nearly every day since. It'd be a sad state of affairs if it transpired he didn't enjoy it.

    But he also turns 80 in November, and would be 86 before the end of any second term. That is a real consideration - it doesn't affect his ability to do the things that need to be done, but there's a relentless intensity to governing and campaigning, and it needs careful managing for a man of that age who's health is okay but not exceptional.
    I didn't say he should run, but I think he will.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
    Only three, surely? Windsor, Balmoral and Hillsborough (and two of those are stately homes masquerading as castles).

    The rest are palaces, no?
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 8,609
    edited September 2022
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    I can sort of understand the obsession. It would make a lot of things easier if there was more gaseous gold under our feet that science allowed us to pump, burn and sell. Staring down greenies also cheers a certain blind of right winger. And nationalists are always prone to the temptations of autarky. (Yes, Redwood and Farage, I do mean you.)

    But if there is little or no viable gas to frack, that's just geology. But for some, belief in geology is disbelief in Britain. Strange.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
    The people banging on the loudest about how fracking won't work don't seem really worried that it won't work, they seem worried that given the chance that it will.
    They're worried because it won't work and we've meantime wasted a great deal of time and energy getting nowhere with a proper energy strategy. You wouldn't include cold fusion or perpetual motion machines, would you?
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited September 2022
    It might be slightly dicey and ambiguous for the monarchy's role, but I'm actually looking forward to a slightly more socially and environmentally interventionist monarch. That happens to be exactly what the times demand, I think.
  • ydoethur said:

    Ratters said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:


    It does feel to me like William would have been a better option if the aim was continuity.

    The Scottish Nationalists wasted Johnson. We republicans can't afford to waste Charles. It's got to be now.
    I don't think there are
    1) A high enough proportion of republicans in the UK
    2) Republicans don't hold their views strongly enough to even make it an mainstream political discussion

    The exception would be if Charles is too politically active. But I suspect he'll play the role he's been preparing for his whole life well enough that it's not an issue.

    On the other hand, I suspect other commonwealth countries will become republics over the next few years.
    If Australia isn't a republic within three years I shall be very surprised.
    I’d be quite surprised if there are any Commonwealth realms left by the end of the decade (NZ and Canada might hold out a touch longer, I suppose). An anachronism that was sustained by deference to Her Maj, but in 2022 looks incredibly out of place. That’s not something Charles should be blamed for by the way - there is an inevitability about it.

    Was it 50 countries that gained independence from Britain during the Queen's reign? Maybe a handful less, and some are pretty small, but a heck of a lot anyway.

    And, of course, that wasn't about the Queen any more than countries choosing now as the moment to choose a domestically-based head of state will be about the King. It's just that having an overseas head of state is rather odd looked at objectively, and the change of a very longstanding monarch is a natural and respectful point to make the break.
  • I've been a bit slow on this but i reckon HMQ actually died yesterday morning, and possibly even earlier, and doctors are "very concerned and she's under close medical supervision" was code for she's died and had her doctors standing over her with a coroner whilst the process went into effect.

    She 'officially' died only when all her family were there, and they were ready to announce it, but it wasn't at 6.30pm or 4.30pm. It was more like 12.30pm, or possibly in the small hours of the morning since overnight is most likely.

    We will find out more in the coming days and weeks.

    I doubt we'll ever find out, although we already know that Truss was officially informed at 4:30pm and Jacinda Ahern was at 5:50pm our time. It certainly will have taken time even before the PM was officially told.

    We're unlikely to ever be officially told, but certainly suspect that she'd died when the commotion in the Commons began yesterday.
    Goof morning

    I expect that Zahawi message handed to Truss told her the Queen had just died and hence why she, Starmer and others left almost immediately

    On topic the Queen studiously kept above politics for 70 years so no, King Charles will need to do the same otherwise demands for a Republic will just grow

    On fracking I doubt any fracking will take place and it is simply a symbolic gesture by Truss to the right and she did make it clear it has to be with public consent anyway

    I expect the country will find 10-12 days mourning far too long and no doubt will want s change in the future
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    I can sort of understand the obsession. It would make a lot of things easier if there was more gaseous gold under our feet that science allowed us to pump, burn and sell. Staring down greenies also cheers a certain blind of right winger. And nationalists are always prone to the temptations of autarky. (Yes, Redwood and Farage, I do mean you.)

    But if there is little or no viable gas to frack, that's just geology. But for some, belief in geology is disbelief in Britain. Strange.

    The
    It's curious, because William Smith developed stratigraphical geology in part to eradicate the phenomenon of people digging for coal wherever there was no sane hope (as shown by his work).
  • RattersRatters Posts: 483

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I'm inclined to believe @rcs1000's comment on UK fracking: that it is not economically viable even at current prices, and therefore an irrelevance.
    But there's another aspect to this: energy security. *If* we need gas supplies in the medium term, and gas supplies means buying from abroad, then we're putting ourselves somewhat in Germany's position today (albeit in a lesser way due to North Sea gas).

    How much is energy security worth? How much extra are we willing to pay for our gas to avoid this sort of mess happening again?

    Even if fracking is not economically viable, it may be a wise thing to do.

    (Personally, I'm on the fence about it.)
    Fracking in the UK is a ponzi scheme. Cuadrilla took large amounts of investor money, drilled a lot of wells, shagged communities, and produced only a thimblefull of gas. It isn't a question of "is it economically viable" - it isn't.

    No, this IS about energy security. And "lets go fracking" takes us further from a solution than we are now. It makes our security worse. Truss is only doing so - despite all the detailed factual evidence (from her own Chancellor amongst others) why it is a stupid idea - because the decrepit giffers who voted for her have been told its a magic bullet.
    If its so impossible then it will fail, and it should fail to get investment or the investors will lose their shirts.

    But let them get on with it and try, if they believe in it.
    The issue is the negative externalities created from fracking attempts, for example on local roads.

    That doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to try, but that they should pay a substantial amount of tax locally to compensate for said externalities. The system can be transparent in advance such that it is built into the decision-making process of whether to proceed.

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 10,172
    edited September 2022

    Anyway, back to business. Parliament is now suspended bar tributes until 21st September, when it is suspended for conference season.

    Which means there is no longer any time to debate the Truss Energy Company Shareholders subsidy. Or scrutinise its details. Or pick apart the bill. Or sign it into law before the 1st October when it has to exist or else the Big Bang cap comes into effect.

    Yes the Queen is dead. But she won't be the first pensioner dying under the Truss government this winter if action is deferred because we're all in mourning or whatever. Pay tributes in the house today, then get back to very very urgent business on Monday.

    Action won't be deferred, its already happened.

    I've already received an email from my energy provider, which was sent late last night while the news was all about HMQ of course, saying that the new cap is lower. Its done already.

    We're pleased to see that the Government has announced a new Energy Price Guarantee which will replace the energy price cap.

    The Prime Minister's statement confirmed that the Energy Price Guarantee would be set at £2,500 per year from 1st October 2022 for a typical household (one that uses 12,000 kWh of gas per year, and 2,900 kWh of electricity per year, and paying both by Direct Debit). This is a decrease from the £3,549 per year previously announced by the energy regulator, Ofgem, at the end of August. You'll also still receive the £400 Energy Bills Support Scheme discount from October.

    We're working through the detail of this change with the Government and will be writing to all our affected customers. Please don't call us as our call centre advisors have no further information to share with you just now and we want to keep our phone lines free for those who need us most. Be assured, we'll share any updates on our website as soon as we have more details.


    People will be working on this still, even while the news is about other issues. It may not take legislation, but the firms are already moving on with this.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 3,623
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
    The people banging on the loudest about how fracking won't work don't seem really worried that it won't work, they seem worried that given the chance that it will.
    They're worried because it won't work and
    we've meantime wasted a great deal of time

    and energy getting nowhere with a proper

    energy strategy. You wouldn't include cold
    fusion or perpetual motion machines, would you?
    I agree, there may be some for whom simply the idea of gas extraction is evil, but for most sceptics it’s the distraction - the fiddling while Rome burns - for nothing more than an expensive ideological hobby, that’s the worry.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
    The people banging on the loudest about how fracking won't work don't seem really worried that it won't work, they seem worried that given the chance that it will.
    What worries me about fracking is not the fracking but that it demonstrates that the PM cares more about something that is a totemic symbol of fossil fuel extraction than she does about what makes economic or environmental sense. It’s a Trumpian owning-the-libtards position.
  • ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
    Only three, surely? Windsor, Balmoral and Hillsborough (and two of those are stately homes masquerading as castles).

    The rest are palaces, no?
    Edinburgh?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446
    Following my post three days ago about it being the first time that the British PM is younger than me, and TSE's response that being older than the US President would be a real shock....

    I'm glad to point out that I'm not older than the new UK Monarch, .... but I will be next time!


  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
    Only three, surely? Windsor, Balmoral and Hillsborough (and two of those are stately homes masquerading as castles).

    The rest are palaces, no?
    Edinburgh?
    Holyrood is the official royal residence there, I think? As Buckingham Palace is in London, not the Tower?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
    Only three, surely? Windsor, Balmoral and Hillsborough (and two of those are stately homes masquerading as castles).

    The rest are palaces, no?
    Castle of Mey
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 2,644
    Have we mentioned Hillsborough Castle?
  • TOPPING said:

    R4 on atm. Jeez we can't have too much more of this can we? Dear god not a whole day of it and they've cancelled all kinds of events for some unknown idiotic reason including the horse racing which she loved ffs.

    Plus how many more people can they drag up to ask about some Queen anecdote or other only to be told well I can't really talk about that.

    The Queen has died aged 96 after a life of service.

    Let's leave it there shall we.

    Lol, you think it’s only gonnae be a day of it?
    #prayfortopping
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
    Only three, surely? Windsor, Balmoral and Hillsborough (and two of those are stately homes masquerading as castles).

    The rest are palaces, no?
    Castle of Mey
    A funny one. Technically owned by a private trust and sometimes used by the Royals.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    All the attempts at saying something controversial seem very calculated and “played for”. Like a 4 year old shooting “poo”, to get attention.

  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446
    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    Are you trying to imply that her opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    That is also a statement that could be atacked bit by bit, but is not worthy of it.
    Are you trying to imply that we should give a shit what opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    You wrote:
    "It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions."
    which kind of implies you do give a shit.

  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,883
    edited September 2022
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    I think he actually took a term off from Cambridge to spend at Aberystwyth, prior to graduation.

    My favourite King Charles story is how he led a platoon of schoolboys from Gordonstoun into a pub and demanded beer all round, for which he was somewhat hypocritically chastised in the press as an under-age drinker. In this respect he takes after his grandmother rather than the late Queen.
    So Aberystwyth is so awesome that people actually take time away from Cambridge to improve themselves?
    It was to get him in shape for the Investiture in 1969 - a whimsical brouhaha about which the Welsh were sharply divided.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
    Only three, surely? Windsor, Balmoral and Hillsborough (and two of those are stately homes masquerading as castles).

    The rest are palaces, no?
    Edinburgh?
    Holyrood is the official royal residence there, I think? As Buckingham Palace is in London, not the Tower?
    Yes but I am pretty sure the castle belongs to the Crown.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    I think he actually took a term off from Cambridge to spend at Aberystwyth, prior to graduation.

    My favourite King Charles story is how he led a platoon of schoolboys from Gordonstoun into a pub and demanded beer all round, for which he was somewhat hypocritically chastised in the press as an under-age drinker. In this respect he takes after his grandmother rather than the late Queen.
    So Aberystwyth is so awesome that people actually take time away from Cambridge to improve themselves?
    It was to get him in shape for the Investiture in1969 - a whimsical brouhaha about which the Welsh were sharply divided.
    Still proves the superiority of Aber though, Cambridge wasn't good enough to prepare a future king for a coronation.

    (PS, can I just troll TSE in peace now?)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    Fracking should be pretty good at flipping seats away from the Tories. No one wants it near them. Like taxes, fracking is best for other people.

    This is the point I don't get. We know from other markets that fracking is seriously fracking disruptive. It isn't a couple of wells to get the gas, its dozens. So when people say "we want fracking" are they envisaging such wells all over their parks? Or in their own garden? Or in a local beauty spot? Nope - its Someone Else's Problem.

    We know how planning works in this country. People like planning when it benefits them but only inconveniences others. So unless all the frackable reserves happen to be in solid Labour seats, this will be a Bad issue for the Tories.

    Prediction Ed "I banned fracking" Davey will go to town in opposition. And see a sizeable boost in targeted support across swathes of southern Tory / LibDem swing seats.
    This is the missed opportunity by Labour, in my view. They should have played the conservatives game.
    What they could do, is find an area of the south east which is not an AONB, and is safely conservative, and announce that they are going to build 2 million homes there in the next 10 years, with planning permission granted by an emergency act of Parliament in the first 100 days of being elected, thus circumventing the planning process.
    Call it 'Epping 2032' or something.
    Then, announce that it will be 50% affordable housing, reserved for people in Labour constituencies who cannot secure housing on the open market.
    To try and create 'sustainable/mixed/balanced communities'.
    A million homes for those failed by the tories etc over the past 12 years etc.
    Further phases could then be rolled out in affluent rural areas where they stand no chance of being elected.
    From a labour point of view, where is the downside?
    I would vote for that, and I'm normally a Tory voter.
    When Labour tried to “build the Tories out of London” after the war, it backfired. In some cases, rather spectacularly.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I think he will run again.
    He's enjoying it too much to quit.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1568020355520024576
    Biden does an impression of Republicans trying to take credit for legislation they didn’t vote...

    I'd bloody well hope he enjoys it. 50 years ago today, he was at the business end of his first campaign for Senate, and he's been at or near the heart of political life in Washington DC nearly every day since. It'd be a sad state of affairs if it transpired he didn't enjoy it.

    But he also turns 80 in November, and would be 86 before the end of any second term. That is a real consideration - it doesn't affect his ability to do the things that need to be done, but there's a relentless intensity to governing and campaigning, and it needs careful managing for a man of that age who's health is okay but not exceptional.
    I didn't say he should run, but I think he will.
    Posting as an 80+ year old I can confirm that parts of the body which were once working very well suddenly stop doing so. Certainly after the mid 70s!
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908
    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    Are you trying to imply that her opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    That is also a statement that could be atacked bit by bit, but is not worthy of it.
    Are you trying to imply that we should give a shit what opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    Should we have an opinion on what shits are widespread in UK US universities?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
    Only three, surely? Windsor, Balmoral and Hillsborough (and two of those are stately homes masquerading as castles).

    The rest are palaces, no?
    Edinburgh?
    Holyrood is the official royal residence there, I think? As Buckingham Palace is in London, not the Tower?
    Yes but I am pretty sure the castle belongs to the Crown.
    So does Tutbury Castle (well, the Duchy of Lancaster) but they don't live there.

    You could make a case that all castles owned by EH, Cadw and Historic Scotland are Crown Properties as well, of course, which would take us into the hundreds...
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 4,288
    edited September 2022
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I think he will run again.
    He's enjoying it too much to quit.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1568020355520024576
    Biden does an impression of Republicans trying to take credit for legislation they didn’t vote...

    I'd bloody well hope he enjoys it. 50 years ago today, he was at the business end of his first campaign for Senate, and he's been at or near the heart of political life in Washington DC nearly every day since. It'd be a sad state of affairs if it transpired he didn't enjoy it.

    But he also turns 80 in November, and would be 86 before the end of any second term. That is a real consideration - it doesn't affect his ability to do the things that need to be done, but there's a relentless intensity to governing and campaigning, and it needs careful managing for a man of that age who's health is okay but not exceptional.
    I didn't say he should run, but I think he will.
    I don't think his passion for politics has ever really been in doubt.

    But he's a reasonably pragmatic man who, let's not forget, himself chose not to run for President as retiring VP in 2016 - there were various reasons for that, of course, and he then stood in 2020 - but he's far from incapable of stepping away (contrast some other individuals).

    He also has a loving, slightly younger, wife who is clearly reasonably protective of him and sees the progressive signs of aging in him. I do think that will be influential.

    I also believe - and I know OGH and sites like 538 dismiss this - that there's a very real risk of a middle aged man or woman in a hurry forcing the issue in 2023/24, particularly if the November elections are towards the poorer end of the scale for the Democrats (their position has improved post-Dobbs but it's still a mid-term and the House still looks hard to hold). The obvious precedent is Eugene McCarthy, who forced out of the race a President who was a fair bit younger than Biden (although not particularly healthy) and a fair bit more pugnacious. There is a real temptation to break ranks in 2024 rather than enter a very large field, possibly including an incumbent (albeit not hugely popular) VP in 2028.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 7,459
    edited September 2022
    Re; a post below on fracking, I would actually be pleased if Charles exerted a bit of discreet influence against.

    There are two issues - the dilemmas of constitutional monarchy and its role, and the urgencies of a national social crisis and global environmental one. In that respect Charles actually seems the right, complex, figure at the right time, to me, although he's going to have to navigate all these dilemmas of very high stakes with extreme care.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883
    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    On topic, nice to see a Cambridge graduate get the top job in the country.

    Has an Oxford graduate ever become monarch in this country?

    #OxfordIsADump

    He also attended Aberystwyth as a postgrad.

    Proving, once again, the superiority of Aber over all unis in the country.
    ...


    About ten castles.
    Only three, surely? Windsor, Balmoral and Hillsborough (and two of those are stately homes masquerading as castles).

    The rest are palaces, no?
    Edinburgh?
    Holyrood is the official royal residence there, I think? As Buckingham Palace is in London, not the Tower?
    It is. The Castle is an Army barracks cum Historic Scotland site. Hasn't been a royal palace since Marie Stuart had her baby James there, pretty much.
  • The bizarre thing is that we are 3 days into the tenure of Liz Truss and she has already made it into the history books. That legacy all PMs chase? She’ll always be the first PM in 70 years to deal with a demise of the Crown. Always the final PM of Elizabeth II. Always the first PM to deal with a transition since Churchill.

    Ok, I know it’s not a ‘legacy’ per se, but she is at least destined to be remembered now, even if her tenure is short.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    The bizarre thing is that we are 3 days into the tenure of Liz Truss and she has already made it into the history books. That legacy all PMs chase? She’ll always be the first PM in 70 years to deal with a demise of the Crown. Always the final PM of Elizabeth II. Always the first PM to deal with a transition since Churchill.

    Ok, I know it’s not a ‘legacy’ per se, but she is at least destined to be remembered now, even if her tenure is short.

    There's a certain neat symmetry as well that she is not just Elizabeth but Mary Elizabeth.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    The bizarre thing is that we are 3 days into the tenure of Liz Truss and she has already made it into the history books. That legacy all PMs chase? She’ll always be the first PM in 70 years to deal with a demise of the Crown. Always the final PM of Elizabeth II. Always the first PM to deal with a transition since Churchill.

    Ok, I know it’s not a ‘legacy’ per se, but she is at least destined to be remembered now, even if her tenure is short.

    And her predecessor is "sick as a parrot"!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779
    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I think he will run again.
    He's enjoying it too much to quit.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1568020355520024576
    Biden does an impression of Republicans trying to take credit for legislation they didn’t vote...

    I'd bloody well hope he enjoys it. 50 years ago today, he was at the business end of his first campaign for Senate, and he's been at or near the heart of political life in Washington DC nearly every day since. It'd be a sad state of affairs if it transpired he didn't enjoy it.

    But he also turns 80 in November, and would be 86 before the end of any second term. That is a real consideration - it doesn't affect his ability to do the things that need to be done, but there's a relentless intensity to governing and campaigning, and it needs careful managing for a man of that age who's health is okay but not exceptional.
    I didn't say he should run, but I think he will.
    Posting as an 80+ year old I can confirm that parts of the body which were once working very well suddenly stop doing so. Certainly after the mid 70s!
    Your brain still seems to be working fine, though. Better than those of some much younger posters imho :wink:
    Seconded!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I think he will run again.
    He's enjoying it too much to quit.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1568020355520024576
    Biden does an impression of Republicans trying to take credit for legislation they didn’t vote...

    I'd bloody well hope he enjoys it. 50 years ago today, he was at the business end of his first campaign for Senate, and he's been at or near the heart of political life in Washington DC nearly every day since. It'd be a sad state of affairs if it transpired he didn't enjoy it.

    But he also turns 80 in November, and would be 86 before the end of any second term. That is a real consideration - it doesn't affect his ability to do the things that need to be done, but there's a relentless intensity to governing and campaigning, and it needs careful managing for a man of that age who's health is okay but not exceptional.
    I didn't say he should run, but I think he will.
    Posting as an 80+ year old I can confirm that parts of the body which were once working very well suddenly stop doing so. Certainly after the mid 70s!
    Your brain still seems to be working fine, though. Better than those of some much younger posters imho :wink:
    That's very kind indeed, Professor!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    Selebian said:

    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    Are you trying to imply that her opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    That is also a statement that could be atacked bit by bit, but is not worthy of it.
    Are you trying to imply that we should give a shit what opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    Should we have an opinion on what shits are widespread in UK US universities?
    A minority of loud mouthed “activists” for every cause between the loony version of fascism and the loony version of Pol Potism.

    A significant number of those are just doing it for attention. Another chunk are trying to build a political career. A very small number are actually serious about their activism.

    When I was at uni, it was interesting how many times acquiring a Significant Other led to the dropping of “activism”.
  • Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
    The people banging on the loudest about how fracking won't work don't seem really worried that it won't work, they seem worried that given the chance that it will.
    They're worried because it won't work and we've meantime wasted a great deal of time and energy getting nowhere with a proper energy strategy. You wouldn't include cold fusion or perpetual motion machines, would you?
    'We' will have not wasted anything; the Government is not proposing to subsidise fracking. Companies will take the risk and earn any potential reward. Your position on this is wholly absurd.
  • Thoughtful perspective from Paul Keating:

    https://twitter.com/samroggeveen/status/1568100671232290817
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 37,019
    eristdoof said:

    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    Are you trying to imply that her opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    That is also a statement that could be atacked bit by bit, but is not worthy of it.
    Are you trying to imply that we should give a shit what opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    You wrote:
    "It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions."
    which kind of implies you do give a shit.

    I didn't write that.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279

    Selebian said:

    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    Are you trying to imply that her opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    That is also a statement that could be atacked bit by bit, but is not worthy of it.
    Are you trying to imply that we should give a shit what opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    Should we have an opinion on what shits are widespread in UK US universities?
    A minority of loud mouthed “activists” for every cause between the loony version of fascism and the loony version of Pol Potism.

    A significant number of those are just doing it for attention. Another chunk are trying to build a political career. A very small number are actually serious about their activism.

    When I was at uni, it was interesting how many times acquiring a Significant Other led to the dropping of “activism”.
    Unless of course the SO was engaged in the same activism!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 31,942
    boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    It seems to be a common theme for many politicians - the close family member who is somewhere on the FromExtremeEmbarrassmentToCriminal scale.
  • The bizarre thing is that we are 3 days into the tenure of Liz Truss and she has already made it into the history books. That legacy all PMs chase? She’ll always be the first PM in 70 years to deal with a demise of the Crown. Always the final PM of Elizabeth II. Always the first PM to deal with a transition since Churchill.

    Ok, I know it’s not a ‘legacy’ per se, but she is at least destined to be remembered now, even if her tenure is short.

    And her predecessor is "sick as a parrot"!
    Words cannot describe how utterly delighted I am that Boris didn’t get this moment. Her Maj’s last gift to us.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
    The people banging on the loudest about how fracking won't work don't seem really worried that it won't work, they seem worried that given the chance that it will.
    They're worried because it won't work and we've meantime wasted a great deal of time and energy getting nowhere with a proper energy strategy. You wouldn't include cold fusion or perpetual motion machines, would you?
    'We' will have not wasted anything; the Government is not proposing to subsidise fracking. Companies will take the risk and earn any potential reward. Your position on this is wholly absurd.
    That's right, divert capital and wreck the area with the modern equivalent of coal mines in JUrassic rocks.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    golly

    wow
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    It seems to be a common theme for many politicians - the close family member who is somewhere on the FromExtremeEmbarrassmentToCriminal scale.
    The King has an awkward decision to make in that regard.

    If Trump attends the funeral, maybe sit Andrew next to him? After all, they were both very close friends of a certain financier...
  • boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    Wow. Bullet dodged. Poor Penny. No wonder she looked absent throughout the process.
  • Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I think he will run again.
    He's enjoying it too much to quit.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1568020355520024576
    Biden does an impression of Republicans trying to take credit for legislation they didn’t vote...

    I'd bloody well hope he enjoys it. 50 years ago today, he was at the business end of his first campaign for Senate, and he's been at or near the heart of political life in Washington DC nearly every day since. It'd be a sad state of affairs if it transpired he didn't enjoy it.

    But he also turns 80 in November, and would be 86 before the end of any second term. That is a real consideration - it doesn't affect his ability to do the things that need to be done, but there's a relentless intensity to governing and campaigning, and it needs careful managing for a man of that age who's health is okay but not exceptional.
    I didn't say he should run, but I think he will.
    Posting as an 80+ year old I can confirm that parts of the body which were once working very well suddenly stop doing so. Certainly after the mid 70s!
    I can fully endorse your comment OKC
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 3,317
    edited September 2022
    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    @Stocky

    I think these kind of tweets are counterproductive and it does help that they get air time. It reveals the hateful and near psychotic nature of the 'thought leaders' of the 'woke' left, much like the communists that preceded them, and how much they have compromised universities, and the naivety of the fellow travellers and useful idiots they command.

    Taking a step back, I think something is obviously wrong with Twitter, if this stuff basically gets a free pass (it got taken down, but she is still posting on Twitter defending the tweet), whereas people on the 'right' have been permanently removed from the platform for trivial reasons of far less objective seriousness. Twitter is a platform of massive significance, and those who are running it are ideologically manipulating public debate, which goes against the entire principle of free speech.

    I would rather that free speech and the liberal ideas of an open society were restored, but if it isn't possible to do that, then I would choose the Trump tyranny over the nightmare of being stuck in a 'woke' dictatorship, which seems to be fast coming to realisation. The 'woke' may think they are winning now, but in the end it is this type of perspective on the part of undecided voters that could well get the Republicans over the line in 2024.

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 29,279
    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    It seems to be a common theme for many politicians - the close family member who is somewhere on the FromExtremeEmbarrassmentToCriminal scale.
    The King has an awkward decision to make in that regard.

    If Trump attends the funeral, maybe sit Andrew next to him? After all, they were both very close friends of a certain financier...
    Can't we are arrest Trump if he does set foot on the shores? He must've done something dodgy with those golf courses in Scotland!
  • ydoethur said:

    Ratters said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:


    It does feel to me like William would have been a better option if the aim was continuity.

    The Scottish Nationalists wasted Johnson. We republicans can't afford to waste Charles. It's got to be now.
    I don't think there are
    1) A high enough proportion of republicans in the UK
    2) Republicans don't hold their views strongly enough to even make it an mainstream political discussion

    The exception would be if Charles is too politically active. But I suspect he'll play the role he's been preparing for his whole life well enough that it's not an issue.

    On the other hand, I suspect other commonwealth countries will become republics over the next few years.
    If Australia isn't a republic within three years I shall be very surprised.
    It rather depends on what the politicians cobble together as the alternative - that’s what sank it last time. No, they may not want to be a monarchy, but they also didn’t want that sort of president either.

    As the Queen observed, it is entirely a matter for the people of Australia and whatever they decide relations between the countries will remain strong.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
    The people banging on the loudest about how fracking won't work don't seem really worried that it won't work, they seem worried that given the chance that it will.
    What worries me about fracking is not the fracking but that it demonstrates that the PM cares more about something that is a totemic symbol of fossil fuel extraction than she does about what makes economic or environmental sense. It’s a Trumpian owning-the-libtards position.

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    On topic, the way we ‘deal with’ fracking is easy - we allow the taxes on it to be raised locally, so everyone in the district gets a cheque instead of a council tax bill.

    I think locals to fracking sites will get reduced gas bills, which they will no doubt be delighted with.

    To answer the thread, Truss's plans will of course continue unaffected - this is an energy crisis. The King (have to get used to that!) will not pick a fight whereby his wealth, privilege and power is used to stamp on something that could reduce ordinary peoples' fuel bills.
    Sure, reduced gas bills are a really great help if there is a connector every few hundred metres for miles, and cracks in the walls and zero equity. And UK land fracking is bloody useless anyway compared to the other options. I can't understand the rightwingers' obsession - it's the energy equivalent of slavetrader statues.
    What utter nonsense. In what world is lifting a ban on a commercial activity 'an obsession' with it? Accessible gas cannot be conjoured into existence. Either it will work, or it won't. Let the geology decide.
    The geology has already decided. Unless you know more than our oil geologists and economists and anyone with some common sense?
    Then nobody will want to do any fracking will they? Problem solved.
    The people banging on the loudest about how fracking won't work don't seem really worried that it won't work, they seem worried that given the chance that it will.
    What worries me about fracking is not the fracking but that it demonstrates that the PM cares more about something that is a totemic symbol of fossil fuel extraction than she does about what makes economic or environmental sense. It’s a Trumpian owning-the-libtards position.
    It is. Like ivermectin for covid. What makes sense in one particular context (patients weakened by worm burdens) is not relevant to the UK context (very few worms).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491
    A king who picks a fight with the political power in their realm comes to a sticky end. Charles won't I bet.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,883

    boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    Wow. Bullet dodged. Poor Penny. No wonder she looked absent throughout the process.
    Yes - it probably explains a lot - I seem to recall that people were commenting that she looked distant and emotional a lot in the early stages.

    But if it cost her just five votes that went to Liz then it’s quite amazing how history could have been different.

  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,248
    darkage said:

    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    @Stocky

    I think these kind of tweets are counterproductive and it does help that they get air time. It reveals the hateful and near psychotic nature of the 'thought leaders' of the 'woke' left, much like the communists that preceded them, and how much they have compromised universities, and the naivety of the fellow travellers and useful idiots they command.

    Taking a step back, I think something is obviously wrong with Twitter, if this stuff basically gets a free pass (it got taken down, but she is still posting on Twitter defending the tweet), whereas people on the 'right' have been permanently removed from the platform for trivial reasons of far less objective seriousness. Twitter is a platform of massive significance, and those who are running it are ideologically manipulating public debate, which goes against the entire principle of free speech.

    I would rather that free speech and the liberal ideas of an open society were restored, but if it isn't possible to do that, then I would choose the Trump tyranny over the nightmare of being stuck in a 'woke' dictatorship, which seems to be fast coming to realisation. The 'woke' may think they are winning now, but in the end it is this type of perspective on the part of undecided voters that could well get the Republicans over the line in 2024.

    Thr "dictatorship" is purely your invention. There are widespread opinions and social mores with which you disagree. And on this basis you let others whip you up to support overturning elections.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    On topic, I think he'll shut up, carefully saying "My Government believes..." and "My Government will...". Otherwise he'll get monstered by the Tory media and republicans alike. However, he'll compensate by being notably environmental in less contriversial areas. For example, the Palace presumably has a fleet of cars. It would be easy for him to announce that they will all be replaced by electric cars in the next few years. How is the Palace heated? What about puting in heat pumps?

    A wind farm in one of his estates would be fun too.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 28,779

    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    It seems to be a common theme for many politicians - the close family member who is somewhere on the FromExtremeEmbarrassmentToCriminal scale.
    The King has an awkward decision to make in that regard.

    If Trump attends the funeral, maybe sit Andrew next to him? After all, they were both very close friends of a certain financier...
    Can't we are arrest Trump if he does set foot on the shores? He must've done something dodgy with those golf courses in Scotland!

    Does he even have his passports?

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-claims-fbi-took-documents-covered-by-privilege-cqlzwjb6g
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 20,039
    O/T: a thoughtful, sometimes lyrical piece about London:

    https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/london-endings-8d777d6d47e
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563

    ydoethur said:

    Ratters said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:


    It does feel to me like William would have been a better option if the aim was continuity.

    The Scottish Nationalists wasted Johnson. We republicans can't afford to waste Charles. It's got to be now.
    I don't think there are
    1) A high enough proportion of republicans in the UK
    2) Republicans don't hold their views strongly enough to even make it an mainstream political discussion

    The exception would be if Charles is too politically active. But I suspect he'll play the role he's been preparing for his whole life well enough that it's not an issue.

    On the other hand, I suspect other commonwealth countries will become republics over the next few years.
    If Australia isn't a republic within three years I shall be very surprised.
    It rather depends on what the politicians cobble together as the alternative - that’s what sank it last time. No, they may not want to be a monarchy, but they also didn’t want that sort of president either.

    As the Queen observed, it is entirely a matter for the people of Australia and whatever they decide relations between the countries will remain strong.
    IIRC it was said at the time the reason John Howard put that model forward is he knew it would be rejected. Which is what he wanted.

    I suppose the question for Australians is, do they want a figurehead President - in which case just make the Governor-General one - or an executive one? The issue with direct elections is that for good or ill they would ultimately end up with the latter. Gough Whitlam wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if he'd been facing a popularly elected President.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    ydoethur said:

    The bizarre thing is that we are 3 days into the tenure of Liz Truss and she has already made it into the history books. That legacy all PMs chase? She’ll always be the first PM in 70 years to deal with a demise of the Crown. Always the final PM of Elizabeth II. Always the first PM to deal with a transition since Churchill.

    Ok, I know it’s not a ‘legacy’ per se, but she is at least destined to be remembered now, even if her tenure is short.

    And her predecessor is "sick as a parrot"!
    I'm really desperately sad about that. I'm so sad and shocked at the thought of Johnson missing out by three days I actually keep crying about it. I don't know why, all this laughter might have something to do with it though.
    Anyone else, one would be genuinely sorry for

    There wasn't even an "iconic" photo of her sacking him
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 4,908

    Selebian said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I think he will run again.
    He's enjoying it too much to quit.

    https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1568020355520024576
    Biden does an impression of Republicans trying to take credit for legislation they didn’t vote...

    I'd bloody well hope he enjoys it. 50 years ago today, he was at the business end of his first campaign for Senate, and he's been at or near the heart of political life in Washington DC nearly every day since. It'd be a sad state of affairs if it transpired he didn't enjoy it.

    But he also turns 80 in November, and would be 86 before the end of any second term. That is a real consideration - it doesn't affect his ability to do the things that need to be done, but there's a relentless intensity to governing and campaigning, and it needs careful managing for a man of that age who's health is okay but not exceptional.
    I didn't say he should run, but I think he will.
    Posting as an 80+ year old I can confirm that parts of the body which were once working very well suddenly stop doing so. Certainly after the mid 70s!
    Your brain still seems to be working fine, though. Better than those of some much younger posters imho :wink:
    That's very kind indeed, Professor!
    Ah... Well if you've elevated me to professor then perhaps you are losing it afterall! :wink:
  • boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    I just don't think that's as big a story, had Mordaunt been PM now, as you think.

    Firstly, it's a very sad story for her and other family members, but basically nobody is going to be blaming her for her brother's proclivities - certainly not the right-wing press, nor even the (smaller) left-leaning press.

    Secondly, as it happens, the story would have been completely forgotten almost immediately because the timing coincided with vastly bigger news.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,248
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ratters said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:


    It does feel to me like William would have been a better option if the aim was continuity.

    The Scottish Nationalists wasted Johnson. We republicans can't afford to waste Charles. It's got to be now.
    I don't think there are
    1) A high enough proportion of republicans in the UK
    2) Republicans don't hold their views strongly enough to even make it an mainstream political discussion

    The exception would be if Charles is too politically active. But I suspect he'll play the role he's been preparing for his whole life well enough that it's not an issue.

    On the other hand, I suspect other commonwealth countries will become republics over the next few years.
    If Australia isn't a republic within three years I shall be very surprised.
    It rather depends on what the politicians cobble together as the alternative - that’s what sank it last time. No, they may not want to be a monarchy, but they also didn’t want that sort of president either.

    As the Queen observed, it is entirely a matter for the people of Australia and whatever they decide relations between the countries will remain strong.
    IIRC it was said at the time the reason John Howard put that model forward is he knew it would be rejected. Which is what he wanted.

    I suppose the question for Australians is, do they want a figurehead President - in which case just make the Governor-General one - or an executive one? The issue with direct elections is that for good or ill they would ultimately end up with the latter. Gough Whitlam wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if he'd been facing a popularly elected President.
    Ireland has never had any such tendency despote direct elections. You just need to make the president in law an even emptier vessel than the crown.
  • eekeek Posts: 22,056
    ydoethur said:

    boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    It seems to be a common theme for many politicians - the close family member who is somewhere on the FromExtremeEmbarrassmentToCriminal scale.
    The King has an awkward decision to make in that regard.

    If Trump attends the funeral, maybe sit Andrew next to him? After all, they were both very close friends of a certain financier...
    Why would an ex-President of a non-Commonwealth country be invited - heck it's likely that only current heads of states will be invited..
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    boulay said:

    boulay said:

    I wasn’t aware of this story - I wonder if it suppressed the vote for Penny in final round?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/19747194/penny-mordaunts-paedo-brother-snared-by-undercover-cop/

    I personally don’t think that what a politician’s family member does should have any bearing on how the politician is viewed but I’m sure it would have been a nightmare.

    Think Liz T had an eventful first week - just think if Penny had been chosen.

    Wow. Bullet dodged. Poor Penny. No wonder she looked absent throughout the process.
    Yes - it probably explains a lot - I seem to recall that people were commenting that she looked distant and emotional a lot in the early stages.

    But if it cost her just five votes that went to Liz then it’s quite amazing how history could have been different.

    It just shows the stunning ineptitude of Sunak. Anyone one quarter competent, one per cent competent, would have known this, lent votes to get her into the final, and leaked it to the Con electorate.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    edited September 2022
    EPG said:

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ratters said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:


    It does feel to me like William would have been a better option if the aim was continuity.

    The Scottish Nationalists wasted Johnson. We republicans can't afford to waste Charles. It's got to be now.
    I don't think there are
    1) A high enough proportion of republicans in the UK
    2) Republicans don't hold their views strongly enough to even make it an mainstream political discussion

    The exception would be if Charles is too politically active. But I suspect he'll play the role he's been preparing for his whole life well enough that it's not an issue.

    On the other hand, I suspect other commonwealth countries will become republics over the next few years.
    If Australia isn't a republic within three years I shall be very surprised.
    It rather depends on what the politicians cobble together as the alternative - that’s what sank it last time. No, they may not want to be a monarchy, but they also didn’t want that sort of president either.

    As the Queen observed, it is entirely a matter for the people of Australia and whatever they decide relations between the countries will remain strong.
    IIRC it was said at the time the reason John Howard put that model forward is he knew it would be rejected. Which is what he wanted.

    I suppose the question for Australians is, do they want a figurehead President - in which case just make the Governor-General one - or an executive one? The issue with direct elections is that for good or ill they would ultimately end up with the latter. Gough Whitlam wouldn't have had a leg to stand on if he'd been facing a popularly elected President.
    Ireland has never had any such tendency despote direct elections. You just need to make the president in law an even emptier vessel than the crown.
    Remember though that Irish politicians for decades stitched up elections, only putting forward old men who wouldn't do anything, to keep it that way. (As they do in Israel.) And also, for the first twelve years of the Presidency, the President wasn't Head of State, which helped to dampen expectations.

    In Australia, would they be able to manage the same thing?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,822
    edited September 2022

    ydoethur said:

    Ratters said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    darkage said:


    It does feel to me like William would have been a better option if the aim was continuity.

    The Scottish Nationalists wasted Johnson. We republicans can't afford to waste Charles. It's got to be now.
    I don't think there are
    1) A high enough proportion of republicans in the UK
    2) Republicans don't hold their views strongly enough to even make it an mainstream political discussion

    The exception would be if Charles is too politically active. But I suspect he'll play the role he's been preparing for his whole life well enough that it's not an issue.

    On the other hand, I suspect other commonwealth countries will become republics over the next few years.
    If Australia isn't a republic within three years I shall be very surprised.
    I’d be quite surprised if there are any Commonwealth realms left by the end of the decade (NZ and Canada might hold out a touch longer, I suppose). An anachronism that was sustained by deference to Her Maj, but in 2022 looks incredibly out of place. That’s not something Charles should be blamed for by the way - there is an inevitability about it.

    Was it 50 countries that gained independence from Britain during the Queen's reign? Maybe a handful less, and some are pretty small, but a heck of a lot anyway.

    And, of course, that wasn't about the Queen any more than countries choosing now as the moment to choose a domestically-based head of state will be about the King. It's just that having an overseas head of state is rather odd looked at objectively, and the change of a very longstanding monarch is a natural and respectful point to make the break.
    Surely Ukraine joining the Commonwealth of Nation will provide a transfusion of vitality into the tottering old edifice? The Glücksburg genes having leapt from Denmark to Greece to the UK should take Hetman of Ukraine in their stride.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 82,491

    TOPPING said:

    Muppets. Calling off the racing would I'm sure be the very last thing HMQ would have wanted.

    My understanding is a lot of things are now going to be cancelled between now and a few days after the funeral as the rozzers/emergency services are re-deployed for the funeral (and procession down from Scotland.)
    Probably why sport gets a bigger impact than most other things - not mandated, but the support network is affected
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 4,446
    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    TOPPING said:

    eristdoof said:

    Stocky said:

    darkage said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Twitter content moderation is obviously utterly overwhelmed. I'm spewing all kinds of spiteful bile over it which would normally get me my customary 24 hour ban but today... nothing. I've had two flag shaggers offer to come round and fight me and it's still very early in the day.

    There was an extremely hateful and offensive tweet going around by a Carnegie Mellon professor (a 'critical race theorist') yesterday. It will of course be ignored/forgiven. But this type of thing will only assist the Republicans return to power.

    The thing is, that the tweet now gets screenshotted, so the 'moderation' of the tweet doesn't stop it circulating.

    Do you support attempts to stop it?

    It could be attacked bit by bit - but it's such shite it isn't worthy of that. It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions.
    Are you trying to imply that her opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    That is also a statement that could be atacked bit by bit, but is not worthy of it.
    Are you trying to imply that we should give a shit what opinions are widespread in UK universities?
    You wrote:
    "It may help alert a wider audience to the sort of people that now infect and influence our educational and other institutions."
    which kind of implies you do give a shit.

    I didn't write that.
    My apologies. You're right it was Stocky who wrote that.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    kle4 said:

    A king who picks a fight with the political power in their realm comes to a sticky end. Charles won't I bet.

    Sticking with his own name should be a reminder
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 56,563
    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    A king who picks a fight with the political power in their realm comes to a sticky end. Charles won't I bet.

    Sticking with his own name should be a reminder
    Charles II did OK when he got rid of Parliament.
This discussion has been closed.