James Doyle asked: "'Out of wedlock' is not the same as 'single parent'. I've only skimmed the article, but the authors seem to conflate the two throughout. Am I missing something, or is the entire premise of their piece, er. rubbish?"
The two are correlated, though less strongly than they once were. You can find many US numbers in this Pew study: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/04/25/the-changing-profile-of-unmarried-parents/ For example: "The rise over the past half-century in the share of all U.S. parents who are unmarried and living with a child younger than 18 has been driven by increases in all types of unmarried parents. In 1968, only 1% of all parents were solo fathers; that figure has risen to 3%. At the same time, the share of all parents who are solo mothers has doubled, from 7% up to 13%. Since 1997, the first year for which data on cohabitation are available, the share of parents that are cohabiting has risen from 4% to 9%."
Yes, which backs my point and not.yours. you're making a lot of a paper which has a false base assumption. You can't write an analysis of the effects of single parent families based on the number of children whose parents are not married because they are not the same. Those figures you wrote about show that most out of wedlock children are not in single parent families. They're in unmarried two-paeent families
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
Stuart a question: so exit poll only 176-173 left v right. For the sake of argument let's say the Right ekes out a narrow victory, wouldn't Kristersson become the new PM? Or would it be Åkesson? Danish election 2015, LL Rasmussen became new PM even though Venstre was 3rd behind DPP.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
I've perhaps not been listening to/watching the BBC as much over the last few days for reasons not mysterious, but can anyone say if there have been any even mildly republican POV expressed? The state broadcaster is forever platforming a motley crew of climate sceptics, EUrophobes, 'genuine concerns about immigration' types and so on in the interests of 'balance', but has this gone out the window?
I've not seen any republicans being called on - whether the BBC higher ups have decided this might be in poor taste before the late Queen has even been buried, I don't know - but there has been some discussion of republican sentiment in the realms. The decision of the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda to offer a referendum on becoming a republic has been mentioned.
The Bretwalda used to validate the selection of the King. In principle this is no different
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
I thought I was the only republican in the PB Village!
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
free REIN
Yes, fair point. You can see why the other spelling of the word crept in to my train of thought though.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
I thought I was the only republican in the PB Village!
When I posted the thoughts below earlier, I didn’t do it to wind anybody up or support right or left, I did it to support the conversation, so we can all get it right.
This is what I posted, does it come across as particularly right wing to you Horse? Does it brush your mane up the wrong way?
My earlier post:
1. I thought it was just plain misleading for some media, like the telegraph, to tell us what inflation will now top off at with the governments freeze reducing it - they can’t actually know. The way it works is, if energy bills stop going up, even if they remain astronomical the less growth in energy bills, the less they can help grow inflation. However it’s just speculation what inflation will top at in UK before you then do the 4-5% reduction. It’s easy to believe a scenario where a weak government can lose control over wage growth in the same coming period.
2. In exactly the same way Truss government did not take an overall cost of their energy policy into parliament last week, because they literally can’t know what it is - the actual cost depends what happens to energy markets - hence they are struggling to cost it up and share the figure with us, also present an exit plan with it.
3. I thought the institute of directors were spot on it their response last Thursday, “What we need now is an external reassurance that the scale of the intervention does not jeopardise the public finances. That’s why it’s crucially important that the Office for Budget Responsibility can swiftly produce its independent assessment of the impact on government debt and the wider macroeconomy.” In exactly the same way Truss government are trying to avoid detailed scrutiny, IoD are expecting OBR scrutiny of the plan to flag up the need for future tax rises in order to protect weak public finances. This is where I see the penny has not dropped with a lot of PBers still backing the governments needlessly expensive freeze plan - Truss may have gone into the commons last week saying the Lady’s not for Taxing, but her policies for weak public finances REEK and SCREAM future taxes (especially if spurning the available windfall tax, which Lady Thatcher would not have spurned).
To my mind, until corrected, those three point nails it. I see my post merely as a true explanation of all the bits of politics going on here, the crisis response I think proves my point it’s not typical left right politics - such as Institute of Directors don’t want a Tory government to put a plan through without proper scrutiny, not because IoD pushing a right wing position, but pushing the correct position for transparency hearing what the OBR have to say about the plan - and Maggie Thatcher would definitely be taking more of this windfall money, just the same as she used to, not because it’s a right wing thing to do, but because it’s the right thing to be redistributive from winners to losers at moments like this - it was thinking like that what won her big majorities. In other words I’m claiming what won Lady Thatcher landslides were her pragmatic moments, outflanking Labour by standing with the working classes. And as TSE explained this morning, Liz Truss has chosen to go in the opposite direction. I don’t see that as usual opposition bashing Truss or her supporters, I’m just adding a few facts and thoughts to the conversation.
I need to rest now. I haven’t been sleeping well for days. 🙋♀️
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
Computer art is banned?
tis.
Quite liked this, particularly the dook. Come ahead, ban hammer.
Putin vibe. They dressed better back then.
While pursuing my duds activities I discovered that there's a tailor that specialises in Georgian/Regency tailoring. Maybe a bit too Sir Percy Blakeney for you but perhaps the next PB gathering..?
It certainly fails the rocking up to Sauchiehall St on a Saturday night test. Might just have got away with it around 1980 at the height of New Romanticism.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
This is a nice encapsulation, although I think he has the skills to be much more than a Prince Edward.
From your second para I agree he largely still has to prove, but somehow I think he will. The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday, and then the pretty plentiful amiable curiosity that he often shows at many other times, both intellectual and for people, and as reported by many people, will be most likely to do the rest.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
I thought I was the only republican in the PB Village!
I'd say it's more common on here than in society in general!
I'm not an angry republican. I'm a republican in principle but it's not a big issue for me and if a monarch can make monarchy work - like the last one did - I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist about it.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
There are only approx 7000 votes separating the blocs.
200,000 foreign votes will not be added to count until Wednesday, so Swedes in eg London might decide the outcome!! 😉
OR the Swedes of Ballard, Seattle. Home of the Northwest Nordic Heritage Museum, and a must-see-and-be-seen stop for Scandinavian royals.
BTW, Ballard is only place in the world (I think) where you may encounter anti-Swedish sentiment.
Among old Norskis! Who aren't exactly crazy about Finns and Danes either. Not sure of views re: Danes, Icelanders, etc, but reckon skeptical covers it.
Stuart a question: so exit poll only 176-173 left v right. For the sake of argument let's say the Right ekes out a narrow victory, wouldn't Kristersson become the new PM? Or would it be Åkesson? Danish election 2015, LL Rasmussen became new PM even though Venstre was 3rd behind DPP.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
I thought I was the only republican in the PB Village!
It's rife on here.
I liked the Queen, wasn't so keen on Phil the Greek and the rest of the entourage.
I am relieved King Charles and Queen Camilla plan to cull the hangers-on.
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
There are now many more mixed-mode jobs , requiring both intellectual and physical skills. In addition the pay and social class issues against such jobs have greatly changed.
As someone actually in that generation, university isn't seen by young people as some kind of pathway to easy money, it's pretty much a basic requirement for most jobs beyond stacking shelves or delivering takeaways. If you want to be a police officer, teacher, civil servant, accountant, whatever, you need a degree. If you don't have a degree, you'll be at a disadvantage when applying for work compared to the 50% of your cohort who do.
Certainly so. I have a nephew who did an apprenticeship in IT, as he never liked the bookstuff. He is industrious and punctual, good with customers and has a sound knowledge base.
In his company he is being overlooked for promotion in favour of graduates who keep overtaking him. He is thinking of going to Uni after all.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
Charles has been handed the ultimate hospital pass - following his mother. She was quite the perfect monarch, such that bonkers as it might be, for 70 years you really didn't feel any need to question the head of state being appointed by an ancient lineage, rather than any process involving merit or democracy.
The best that Charles can do is be a so-so placeholder that preserves the memory of his mother and allows Prince William to take the crown without questions being asked as to "why the hell do we still have this ludicrous set up?"
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
This is a nice encapsulation, although I think he has the skills to be much more than a Prince Edward.
From your second para I agree he largely still has to prove, but somehow I think he will. The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday, and then the pretty plentiful amiable curiosity that he often shows, both intellectual and for people, and as reported by many people, will probably do the rest.
And he might (if I may so bold as to say so) be better equipped and more ready now than he was a couple of decades ago.
Stuart a question: so exit poll only 176-173 left v right. For the sake of argument let's say the Right ekes out a narrow victory, wouldn't Kristersson become the new PM? Or would it be Åkesson? Danish election 2015, LL Rasmussen became new PM even though Venstre was 3rd behind DPP.
A strange type of democracy where a party with less votes than another in the same coalition gets the prime ministership.
Even were it an actual alliance or coalition, which StuartDickson notes it is not, what would be anti-democratic about it?
No one party has a majority, and if a group agree a partnership of some type whoever leads it would still not personally have a democratic mandate, so they would be free to select whomsoever they wanted.
No more anti-democratic than the largest party not forming the government, if a smaller party is able to form alliances to do so, like Ardern did.
I'd say that incident is more likely to be overzealous policing than the government ordering protesters be arrested.
I certainly don't agree with people being arrested for holding up a placard or shouting over others, no matter how tone deaf they're being at an event of mourning.
Tip to Scottish friends: make it clear that the Stone of Scone is not under any circumstances going back to Westminster Abbey, temporarily or otherwise.
David Patrikarakos @dpatrikarakos #Russia 🇷🇺 has just fired Lt. General Berdnikov, its commander of the western military district. He’s been in post for 15 days.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
This is a nice encapsulation, although I think he has the skills to be much more than a Prince Edward.
From your second para I agree he largely still has to prove, but somehow I think he will. The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday, and then the pretty plentiful amiable curiosity that he often shows, both intellectual and for people, and as reported by many people, will probably do the rest.
And he might (if I may so bold as to say so) be better equipped and more ready now than he was a couple of decades ago.
For one thing fewer people will care so much about him being an awful husband a long time ago.
@ZelenskyyUa A total blackout in the Kharkiv & Donetsk regions, a partial one in the Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk & Sumy regions. RF terrorists remain terrorists & attack critical infrastructure. No military facilities, the goal is to deprive people of light & heat.
Looking at the main Swedish Television Exit poll, it's right on a knife edge. In terms of seats in the new Riksdag, the centre-left is on 176 and the centre-right on 173.
Hardly surprising with the exit poll vote shares on 49.6% for the centre-left and 49.2% for the centre right.
It looks as though all the main parties will be back even the Liberals, much beloved of @StuartDickson and there could be no more than 40,000 votes splitting the two blocs.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
This is a nice encapsulation, although I think he has the skills to be much more than a Prince Edward.
From your second para I agree he largely still has to prove, but somehow I think he will. The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday, and then the pretty plentiful amiable curiosity that he often shows, both intellectual and for people, and as reported by many people, will probably do the rest.
And he might (if I may so bold as to say so) be better equipped and more ready now than he was a couple of decades ago.
For one thing fewer people will care so much about him being an awful husband a long time ago.
From the perspective of the future, it looks like a match made in hell, and a good example of how now is a better place to live than then.
This constant reference to a “centre-right bloc” is extremely misleading.
Reinfeldt’s old 4-party “Alliance” was a proper coalition. That was never replaced
What should we call it then, "collaboration", for want of a better word? The Sweden Democrats, Moderates, Christian Democrats and Liberals seem willing to work together in the new Riksdag though whether that will happen in reality I don't know. Does this mean a minority Sweden Democrat Government for example?
The other side is, I agree, much harder to define but if we're talking Confidence & Supply for a continuation of the minority Social Democrat Government, it's possible there may be a slender majority for that.
Looking at the main Swedish Television Exit poll, it's right on a knife edge. In terms of seats in the new Riksdag, the centre-left is on 176 and the centre-right on 173.
Hardly surprising with the exit poll vote shares on 49.6% for the centre-left and 49.2% for the centre right.
It looks as though all the main parties will be back even the Liberals, much beloved of @StuartDickson and there could be no more than 40,000 votes splitting the two blocs.
Amazing how little change there's been since the previous election, which was 175 and 174 seats, and 49.3% and 49.2%.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
My impression of Charles - which could be totally wrong, or could be right but he's going to change - is that he would have made an excellent Prince Edward. Fourth child of the monarch not really expected to take the throne but given free reign to be intellectually curious (which I think he is), and come up with ideas, some of which may go against the grain. You may not agree with him on all of them but it doesn't really matter; none of them are so controversial that they will bring down the monarchy but some might take some thinking in a new direction. And while you're about it, do some stuff with the Prince's trust and write the odd children's book. Fine. If you behave like an entitled arse no-one will really mind.
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
Charles has been handed the ultimate hospital pass - following his mother. She was quite the perfect monarch, such that bonkers as it might be, for 70 years you really didn't feel any need to question the head of state being appointed by an ancient lineage, rather than any process involving merit or democracy.
The best that Charles can do is be a so-so placeholder that preserves the memory of his mother and allows Prince William to take the crown without questions being asked as to "why the hell do we still have this ludicrous set up?"
Still not sure he will pull it off.
He won’t be anywhere near as popular as his mother. But he doesn’t have to be.
The key thing about changing a political system is there has to be an active will to put in place an alternative. For so long as people aren’t particularly enamoured of a politician President then it will be difficult for there to be a groundswell of opinion for abolition.
What the republican cause really needs is a constitutional crisis where the crown can clearly be seen to have exerted undue influence. This is why so many supporters of a republic have been rubbing their hands with glee at a King Charles - because they think he is the sort of person who would do just that. I don’t think he will - I think that is over-egging the pudding. So long as he’s beige-middle of the road-inoffensive, he will be fine.
Tip to Scottish friends: make it clear that the Stone of Scone is not under any circumstances going back to Westminster Abbey, temporarily or otherwise.
A (very) few nutters. Nothing to get worked up about (or did you not see tens of thousands of Scots standing in silent tribute to The Queen?) Of course the Stone of Destiny should to to Westminster for the Coronation. Far more unites us than divides us, and even the silliness of social media and our generally horrible print media and even the fairly low grade politicians we have will not change that.
I thought I was the only republican in the PB Village!
It's rife on here.
I doubt it is - I'm a supporter of Constitutional Monarchy because, rather like democracy, it's not perfect but it's better than any of the alternatives.
I do think the Crown (as an institution) needs to be held to account over how it operates especially with regard to its finances and where the public purse supports the Crown, we, as taxpayers, are entitled to know our money is being properly and effectively utilised.
Beyond that, I've no real issues.
I do, however, look forward to a day when the Prime Minister doesn't have to bow or curtsy to the Monarch - it's a sign of deference which belongs to another age. I suspect Charles rather likes and enjoys the formality - we can but hope William will be more easy going. Respect can still be shown.
In an Indian restaurant in a drizzly, rundown Faro on the coast. After the beauty of the Alentejo, and a week of “hmm, that pleasant Portuguese food is awfully like the last pleasant Portuguese food I had yesterday, right down to the nice-ish, OK-ish bean soup”, the prospect of a decent curry is FRAZZLING my Pleasure Circuits
This is the same experience I had in Italy two weeks ago. The food is often pleasant and generally what you expect. ALWAYS
In an Indian restaurant in a drizzly, rundown Faro on the coast. After the beauty of the Alentejo, and a week of “hmm, that pleasant Portuguese food is awfully like the last pleasant Portuguese food I had yesterday, right down to the nice-ish, OK-ish bean soup”, the prospect of a decent curry is FRAZZLING my Pleasure Circuits
This is the same experience I had in Italy two weeks ago. The food is often pleasant and generally what you expect. ALWAYS
Well from the first 97 results SD are up 7.5% which is well above the exit poll rise so will be interesting to see how this trends as more results come in.
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
If there's one thing that turns me into a monarchist it's that sort of 'everything's racist and Britain is awful' republican. I'm a republican because monarchy is a bit daft. Not because Britain is fundamentally awful.
I thought I was the only republican in the PB Village!
I'd say it's more common on here than in society in general!
I'm not an angry republican. I'm a republican in principle but it's not a big issue for me and if a monarch can make monarchy work - like the last one did - I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist about it.
I am also a republican (small "r" for sure) who has zero problem with constitutional (key caveat) monarchy.
Also believe that Queen Elizabeth II personified many of virtues inherent - or at least latent - in monarchical system. Whereas Donald Trump personifies many of the flaws of republicanism, some of the kind that helped bury Athenian democracy AND the Roman Republic.
Though personally still favor a republic over a monarchy. Due mostly to my raising & brainwashing!
Once told that to the guard giving me a tour of the San Marino capitol building, in reference to virtues of SM versus Liechtenstein. BTW he had nothing bad to say about Liechtenstein, but did tell me that he had dual SM-US citizenship, and was a registered voter in New York City.
Didn't ask (it was a long time ago) but am pretty sure this guy voted for Rudy Giuliani for mayor!
Tip to Scottish friends: make it clear that the Stone of Scone is not under any circumstances going back to Westminster Abbey, temporarily or otherwise.
Why on earth would anyone do that? The fact that it is used for coronations is the whole point of the stone. Without that it's a breeze block.
I thought I was the only republican in the PB Village!
It's rife on here.
I doubt it is - I'm a supporter of Constitutional Monarchy because, rather like democracy, it's not perfect but it's better than any of the alternatives.
I do think the Crown (as an institution) needs to be held to account over how it operates especially with regard to its finances and where the public purse supports the Crown, we, as taxpayers, are entitled to know our money is being properly and effectively utilised.
Beyond that, I've no real issues.
I do, however, look forward to a day when the Prime Minister doesn't have to bow or curtsy to the Monarch - it's a sign of deference which belongs to another age. I suspect Charles rather likes and enjoys the formality - we can but hope William will be more easy going. Respect can still be shown.
Fair enough, but I have no problem with bowing.
I see it as respecting the state (embodied through its human head) that I am loyal to and proud to belong to.
The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday
The effect of further instances will snowball.
His side really do not want the retention of the monarchy to become an issue. Support for it is probably already lower than it was at the time of the platinum jubilee three months ago.
The time may soon come when monarchists won't be able to "God save the king" their way out of trouble, drowning out their opponents as Trumpers did by shouting "USA! USA!"
They are not England. They are not Scotland. They are not Britain. They are a bunch of saddo Tory bigots playing dressup.
Tip to Scottish friends: make it clear that the Stone of Scone is not under any circumstances going back to Westminster Abbey, temporarily or otherwise.
A (very) few nutters. Nothing to get worked up about (or did you not see tens of thousands of Scots standing in silent tribute to The Queen?) Of course the Stone of Destiny should to to Westminster for the Coronation. Far more unites us than divides us, and even the silliness of social media and our generally horrible print media and even the fairly low grade politicians we have will not change that.
Apart from social media and print media and politicians, everything is fine!
Tip to Scottish friends: make it clear that the Stone of Scone is not under any circumstances going back to Westminster Abbey, temporarily or otherwise.
A (very) few nutters. Nothing to get worked up about (or did you not see tens of thousands of Scots standing in silent tribute to The Queen?) Of course the Stone of Destiny should to to Westminster for the Coronation. Far more unites us than divides us, and even the silliness of social media and our generally horrible print media and even the fairly low grade politicians we have will not change that.
Apart from social media and print media and politicians, everything is fine!
Surprisingly that is not very many people. Most people have behaved very appropriately so a few nutters really are a tiny and tiny minded minority.
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
There are now many more mixed-mode jobs , requiring both intellectual and physical skills. In addition the pay and social class issues against such jobs have greatly changed.
As someone actually in that generation, university isn't seen by young people as some kind of pathway to easy money, it's pretty much a basic requirement for most jobs beyond stacking shelves or delivering takeaways. If you want to be a police officer, teacher, civil servant, accountant, whatever, you need a degree. If you don't have a degree, you'll be at a disadvantage when applying for work compared to the 50% of your cohort who do.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Go back even 30 years ago, there were many jobs that offered a decent career where you didn't need a degree.
Hell, go back further and, with jobs like accountancy and law, it was not uncommon for people to leave school at 16, start at the bottom and then become partners. As others have said, for many jobs, it's on the job learning that counts.
That's all gone. Now, as you said, to even be considered, you need a degree. It's become a negative motivating factor, rather than a positive ie you need to have one to avoid being blocked, not because it gives you an inherent advantage.
And I understand completely why young people today need to do one.
And so we throw a huge amount of resources down the drain - resources that are sorely needed for more worthwhile things (not least retraining people later in their careers) - in giving so many young people three years of (for the most part) utterly irrelevant higher education, because we've trapped ourselves in a vicious circle - in which people are arbitrarily ruled out of 50% of careers, not because they lack aptitude or ability, but purely because they haven't spent three years of their lives in higher education.
I am as opposed to education as anyone, but just because something has not had a monetary return doesn't make it pointless.
Students learn their subject, and critical thinking, but also broaden their minds, sow wild oats, learn to live with others, try alternative lifestyles, experiment with life generally, often having the best time in their lives.
"I am as opposed to education as anyone" seems a strange statement.
Then again your second para throws up some issues. All those things may be well and good but what about the majority who don'e get that opportunity to "sow wild oats, learn to live with others, try alternative lifestyles" etc.?
Oh, I am famously anti-education. I see it as a form of social control and indoctrination into a narrow world view. Almost all of my interests have developed through self exploration of ideas, without being burdened by being taught. I see the teacher -pupil relationship as fundamentally socially wrong.
Despite this, I have had a successful career in Medical Education and have strongly positive feedback as a trainer!
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but imagine a world where only a small minority were taught to read.
Universal education is a must for any society that aspires to a degree of equality.
Education and technical expertise are not necessarily the same thing! Nor are they necessarily acquired simultaneously!
I'd regard education and technical expertise as very different things. The first is a potential route to acquiring the second - probably the most reliable route.
Education is the process; technical expertise is often a desired outcome.
La Thatch is a good example of this.
Her first degree was in chemistry- was that a waste of time and money, or did it make her better at the the things she did next?
Chemistry is an excellent base degree. High levels of critical thinking, logic etc plus a good foundation in how a lot of science works. In truth the nation doesn’t need that many practicing chemists, but that doesn’t mean we should have fewer chemistry graduates.
Also, the Oxford BA [sic] in Chemistry had a 4 year course - 3 years 'normal' as the Part 1 and what was effectively a MSc by research in the Part 2, I seem to recall. No idea what happens now, though.
About the only thing I remember from A-level chemistry is that we had to make various substances, and take samples of them to supply to the examiners. Among the ones we had to make was alcohol and we were allowed to bring orange juice into school to drink with that which wasn't required as for sampling!
Different times, OKC. Never sign the risk assessment for that today.
Sad!
One of my current projects is synthesising artificial capsaicins (the hot component in chillies). They are showing some promise in breast cancer screening assays, but really I want to to put them in a chilli and eat the buggers…
No matter how careful I am in the lab, you always know you’ve made a capsaicin by the tingle on your lips. And that’s with wearing all the appropriate PPE.
Hmm, eating them would be quite the bioassay - three, four or five-ring grade?
One of my issues with republicanism is that on average the best countries are constitutional monarchies.
Path dependency perhaps, rather than causation, but, still.
If we have to go republic than of course it should one of those post-Anglo constitutions like Ireland or Germany with a respected non-entity as president.
Did you see that Cuba…CUBA…declared a day of official mourning?
Lol.
I know it probably means little in practice (other than lowering a flag probably), but it is amusing to see diplomatic nicities from some quarters. In fairness I don't the UK at least now really talks about Cuba much.
re the topic, here's a thought. The single biggest driver of this is the push towards higher education amongst the young and its ripple effect.
We've sold young people a lie, namely that if you get a degree, it's the route to riches. That was always going to be impossible given the natural small number of high paying jobs out there. All we have done is created a sullen class of individuals who are in debt, feel they have been cheated and, worse, because they view themselves as superior in knowledge, believe their views are right and that they must be accommodated to.
In addition, those who didn't go to university are made to feel worthless, shut out of many careers even those such as nursing which they could have done before.
Contrast that with a few decades back. If you left school at 16, you weren't automatically thought a failure. In fact, it was seen as the default in many cases. You found yourself a job and trade, and you made your own life (in many cases).
Reverse this stupid obsession with pushing people to Higher Education.
You might just as well say "Reverse the second law of thermodynamics" unfortunately.
The problem isn’t university degrees. It is the belief that all university degrees lead to a high paid, pure white collar job.
There are now many more mixed-mode jobs , requiring both intellectual and physical skills. In addition the pay and social class issues against such jobs have greatly changed.
As someone actually in that generation, university isn't seen by young people as some kind of pathway to easy money, it's pretty much a basic requirement for most jobs beyond stacking shelves or delivering takeaways. If you want to be a police officer, teacher, civil servant, accountant, whatever, you need a degree. If you don't have a degree, you'll be at a disadvantage when applying for work compared to the 50% of your cohort who do.
That's the problem in a nutshell.
Go back even 30 years ago, there were many jobs that offered a decent career where you didn't need a degree.
Hell, go back further and, with jobs like accountancy and law, it was not uncommon for people to leave school at 16, start at the bottom and then become partners. As others have said, for many jobs, it's on the job learning that counts.
That's all gone. Now, as you said, to even be considered, you need a degree. It's become a negative motivating factor, rather than a positive ie you need to have one to avoid being blocked, not because it gives you an inherent advantage.
And I understand completely why young people today need to do one.
And so we throw a huge amount of resources down the drain - resources that are sorely needed for more worthwhile things (not least retraining people later in their careers) - in giving so many young people three years of (for the most part) utterly irrelevant higher education, because we've trapped ourselves in a vicious circle - in which people are arbitrarily ruled out of 50% of careers, not because they lack aptitude or ability, but purely because they haven't spent three years of their lives in higher education.
I am as opposed to education as anyone, but just because something has not had a monetary return doesn't make it pointless.
Students learn their subject, and critical thinking, but also broaden their minds, sow wild oats, learn to live with others, try alternative lifestyles, experiment with life generally, often having the best time in their lives.
"I am as opposed to education as anyone" seems a strange statement.
Then again your second para throws up some issues. All those things may be well and good but what about the majority who don'e get that opportunity to "sow wild oats, learn to live with others, try alternative lifestyles" etc.?
Oh, I am famously anti-education. I see it as a form of social control and indoctrination into a narrow world view. Almost all of my interests have developed through self exploration of ideas, without being burdened by being taught. I see the teacher -pupil relationship as fundamentally socially wrong.
Despite this, I have had a successful career in Medical Education and have strongly positive feedback as a trainer!
Perhaps I am misunderstanding but imagine a world where only a small minority were taught to read.
Universal education is a must for any society that aspires to a degree of equality.
Education and technical expertise are not necessarily the same thing! Nor are they necessarily acquired simultaneously!
I'd regard education and technical expertise as very different things. The first is a potential route to acquiring the second - probably the most reliable route.
Education is the process; technical expertise is often a desired outcome.
La Thatch is a good example of this.
Her first degree was in chemistry- was that a waste of time and money, or did it make her better at the the things she did next?
Chemistry is an excellent base degree. High levels of critical thinking, logic etc plus a good foundation in how a lot of science works. In truth the nation doesn’t need that many practicing chemists, but that doesn’t mean we should have fewer chemistry graduates.
One of the claims made at the time was the reason she was so quick to understand the implications of the Ozone Hole and its causes was because of her background in Chemistry. Not sure how much that was just people projecting.
The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday
The effect of further instances will snowball.
His side really do not want the retention of the monarchy to become an issue. Support for it is probably already lower than it was at the time of the platinum jubilee three months ago.
The time may soon come when monarchists won't be able to "God save the king" their way out of trouble, drowning out their opponents as Trumpers did by shouting "USA! USA!"
They are not England. They are not Scotland. They are not Britain. They are a bunch of saddo Tory bigots playing dressup.
I think that a lot of disillusionment with democracy amongst young people could be explained by Brexit. This is celebrated by the current government as the greatest ever democratic achievement in the history of the country, and one that is praised and supported by the main opposition. However, it caused at least 4 years of complete chaos and gridlock in parliament leading to pointless elections and changes of prime minister. It also took young peoples rights away from them (free movement), which many valued, and which they are told to 'shut up' about. The 'Brexit dividends' have not happened, nothing has really changed, it is the same party in power and they just aren't doing much different now we have exited the EU. The opinion polls show that a significant majority now think it was wrong for Britain to leave the EU. Basically Brexit could be percieved by the young as being told by the old to suffer chaos and hardship in the name of 'democracy'. So you can understand why they may think 'no thanks'.
It is other stuff as well, but I do think a lot of long term damage to our political culture was done by Brexit, which may lead to really perverse outcomes over time, of which this could be one such manifestation.
I see it as respecting the state (embodied through its human head) that I am loyal to and proud to belong to.
It's not worth getting into an argument - I do agree respect can and should be shown on both sides (the Prime Minister is the representative of the will of the people after all).
I just think in the 21st Century such displays of deference look anachronistic but if you or anyone wishes to show that kind of respect to your Monarch, you have every right so to do.
In an Indian restaurant in a drizzly, rundown Faro on the coast. After the beauty of the Alentejo, and a week of “hmm, that pleasant Portuguese food is awfully like the last pleasant Portuguese food I had yesterday, right down to the nice-ish, OK-ish bean soup”, the prospect of a decent curry is FRAZZLING my Pleasure Circuits
This is the same experience I had in Italy two weeks ago. The food is often pleasant and generally what you expect. ALWAYS
The average person going away for their two weeks in the sun each year is probably happy with that; the jaded travel writer: not so much.
Christopher Miller @ChristopherJM I recognize that building… that’s the Izyum district government building. And those are Ukrainian troops raising the blue-and-yellow 🇺🇦 and firing off a few celebratory rounds. Incredible.
Did you see that Cuba…CUBA…declared a day of official mourning?
Lol.
I know it probably means little in practice (other than lowering a flag probably), but it is amusing to see diplomatic nicities from some quarters. In fairness I don't the UK at least now really talks about Cuba much.
She is head of state of several Caribbean nations with whom Cuba presumably maintains relations.
I see it as respecting the state (embodied through its human head) that I am loyal to and proud to belong to.
It's not worth getting into an argument - I do agree respect can and should be shown on both sides (the Prime Minister is the representative of the will of the people after all).
I just think in the 21st Century such displays of deference look anachronistic but if you or anyone wishes to show that kind of respect to your Monarch, you have every right so to do.
Do you not think that there is an element of what is referred to in military terms as 'Saluting the uniform not the man'?
I would agree that showing deference to an individual is anachronistic. But I view deference to the monarch as being respecting the position not the person holding it. And rather displaying deference to what the position is supposed to be representing, which is the people themselves.
In an Indian restaurant in a drizzly, rundown Faro on the coast. After the beauty of the Alentejo, and a week of “hmm, that pleasant Portuguese food is awfully like the last pleasant Portuguese food I had yesterday, right down to the nice-ish, OK-ish bean soup”, the prospect of a decent curry is FRAZZLING my Pleasure Circuits
This is the same experience I had in Italy two weeks ago. The food is often pleasant and generally what you expect. ALWAYS
One of my issues with republicanism is that on average the best countries are constitutional monarchies.
Path dependency perhaps, rather than causation, but, still.
If we have to go republic than of course it should one of those post-Anglo constitutions like Ireland or Germany with a respected non-entity as president.
The presidencies of which are as boring as fuck, and no-one cares about.
There's no advantage to flipping to a republic for the UK except that it might help a small 'intellectual' minority feel philosophically consistent.
I think that a lot of disillusionment with democracy amongst young people could be explained by Brexit. This is celebrated by the current government as the greatest ever democratic achievement in the history of the country, and one that is praised and supported by the main opposition. However, it caused at least 4 years of complete chaos and gridlock in parliament leading to pointless elections and changes of prime minister. It also took young peoples rights away from them (free movement), which many valued, and which they are told to 'shut up' about. The 'Brexit dividends' have not happened, nothing has really changed, it is the same party in power and they just aren't doing much different now we have exited the EU. The opinion polls show that a significant majority now think it was wrong for Britain to leave the EU. Basically Brexit could be percieved by the young as being told by the old to suffer chaos and hardship in the name of 'democracy'. So you can understand why they may think 'no thanks'.
It is other stuff as well, but I do think a lot of long term damage to our political culture was done by Brexit, which may lead to really perverse outcomes over time, of which this could be one such manifestation.
The bit I fear could be really messy is if the UK's pathway goes "It is the will of the people" via "It's not really the will of the people any more but we don't talk about it because Uncle Nigel will go off on one" to "This isn't what we want (and it's a bit rubbish) but it's too late to do anything about now."
Not the only possible pathway, sure, but not implausible, and if it happens, it won't be pretty. Especially for the remains of Uncle Nigel.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
One of my issues with republicanism is that on average the best countries are constitutional monarchies.
Path dependency perhaps, rather than causation, but, still.
If we have to go republic than of course it should one of those post-Anglo constitutions like Ireland or Germany with a respected non-entity as president.
No, we would have to go full powerful elected President, no longer ceremonial head of state like France or the US a befits our status as a G7 member and P5 permanent member of the UN Security Council
Alan Partridge wasn’t based in Norwich for nothing.
Very dignified.
Just been reading John Harris in the Graun, btw, doing his on the road travels thing again (he was rather good on indyref and Brexit): very open ended conclusion:
"In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, one simple historical point has been noticeably missing, perhaps because it is deemed too awkward to talk about. At the time of her coronation, the idea of a tightly bound national community with the monarch at its apex made an appealing kind of sense. [...]
And now? The social attitudes that defined that period, and lingered into the 1990s – a strange mixture of solidarity and deference, and a widely shared optimism about the future – seem very quaint. If you are in your late teens, just about all of your memories will be of the endless turbulence that followed the financial crash of 2008. Your most visceral experience of politics will have been the opposite of consensus and harmony: the seething polarisation triggered by Brexit. For many of those aged under 40, homeownership is a distant dream, and hopes of job security seem slim. Meanwhile, perhaps because society and the economy have been in such a state of flux, space has at last been opened to talk about things that 20th-century Britain stubbornly kept under wraps: empire, systemic racism, the plain fact that so many of the institutions we are still encouraged to revere are rooted in some of the most appalling aspects of this country’s history.
The result of that change is a kingdom with two distinct sets of voices: one that reflects Britain’s tendency to conservatism and tradition, and another that sounds altogether more irreverent and questioning. In all the coverage of the Queen’s passing, the first has been dominant: how could it be otherwise? But as the period of mourning recedes, and a new monarch tries to adapt fantastically challenging realities, that may not hold for long. The post-Elizabethan age, in other words, is going to be very interesting indeed."
That's just typical Guardian masturbation material.
Or you could open your eyes and be willing to think about things, for a change?
There's nothing even vaguely fresh in that; it simply ticks every left-wing cliché known to exist.
It's essentially saying, "I hope, this time, my prejudices turn out to be right."
He doesn't - he says there is a situation that has developed and we need to keep an eye on it. He doesn't say what result he hopes for.
The only situation that has developed is the death of our reigning monarch. I think it's pretty obvious what he and his fellow-travellers hope for, and it's what they've hoped for since the 1990s: radical systemic change, socialism, and republicanism.
It won't happen. And you can detect he secretly knows that, and just hopes otherwise.
The country will continue to slowly evolve, just as it's always done - and did hugely over the reign of QEII, but the monarchy will continue.
He's talking about the wider situation over the last few years. What has happened in the last few years, it is a misconstruing to call a slow evolution, rather than a collapse. That is known as a "fact".
One of my issues with republicanism is that on average the best countries are constitutional monarchies.
Path dependency perhaps, rather than causation, but, still.
If we have to go republic than of course it should one of those post-Anglo constitutions like Ireland or Germany with a respected non-entity as president.
No, we would have to go full powerful elected President, no longer ceremonial head of state like France or the US a befits our status as a G7 member and P5 permanent member of the UN Security Council
Do you seriously think that the UK will keep its status, the way things are going?
One of my issues with republicanism is that on average the best countries are constitutional monarchies.
Path dependency perhaps, rather than causation, but, still.
If we have to go republic than of course it should one of those post-Anglo constitutions like Ireland or Germany with a respected non-entity as president.
The presidencies of which are as boring as fuck, and no-one cares about.
There's no advantage to flipping to a republic for the UK except that it might help a small 'intellectual' minority feel philosophically consistent.
Just in case you were not sure of my status on this I am pro Charles and the monarchy and see no merit in the UK becoming a republic
However, I do expect some commonwealth countries to seek Republican status
The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday
The effect of further instances will snowball.
His side really do not want the retention of the monarchy to become an issue. Support for it is probably already lower than it was at the time of the platinum jubilee three months ago.
The time may soon come when monarchists won't be able to "God save the king" their way out of trouble, drowning out their opponents as Trumpers did by shouting "USA! USA!"
They are not England. They are not Scotland. They are not Britain. They are a bunch of saddo Tory bigots playing dressup.
Go away you far left, Putin loving fanatic.
In this country we very much like our constitutional monarchy indeed both Starmer and Davey and the Tories have backed King Charles IIIrd as our King, indeed so even have the SNP.
Support for our constitutional monarchy crosses across party lines, republicans tend to be Putin loving Corbynites like you! Plus Trump of course lost
Did you see that Cuba…CUBA…declared a day of official mourning?
Lol.
My guess is, this was for benefit (re: relations with Cuba) of British realms and members of the Commonwealth in the West Indies & vicinity?
Where I'm also guessing, respect and nostalgia for the only Queen most of them (and us) have every known, is trumping anti-imperial recriminations in the hearts and minds of most folks. With plenty of room left for conflicted or at least mixed opinions, and future developments.
BTW, regardless of what tabloids and some PBers believe, think having Meghan in the mix for Liz's Last Hurrah is a boon for Britain in general and the Royal Family in particular, in making friends and influencing people in places like the West Indies and among younger generations across the world, including the UK.
Excuse my intrusion, but is it not a little in poor taste to be debating republic versus monarchy at the moment? The lady has not even had her funeral yet. Show a little judgement and delicacy. There is *plenty* of time for vigorous (and good-natured) debate in the years ahead.
Quite agree. Some folk can't comment on the crowds (or otherwise) in Scotland without drawing wider conclusions about political support for the monarchy, or attacking the SNP ("Nits") when it was some republican grouping that was involved.
The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday
The effect of further instances will snowball.
His side really do not want the retention of the monarchy to become an issue. Support for it is probably already lower than it was at the time of the platinum jubilee three months ago.
The time may soon come when monarchists won't be able to "God save the king" their way out of trouble, drowning out their opponents as Trumpers did by shouting "USA! USA!"
They are not England. They are not Scotland. They are not Britain. They are a bunch of saddo Tory bigots playing dressup.
And you sir are a shrill for Putin and the Kremlin
I think that a lot of disillusionment with democracy amongst young people could be explained by Brexit. This is celebrated by the current government as the greatest ever democratic achievement in the history of the country, and one that is praised and supported by the main opposition. However, it caused at least 4 years of complete chaos and gridlock in parliament leading to pointless elections and changes of prime minister. It also took young peoples rights away from them (free movement), which many valued, and which they are told to 'shut up' about. The 'Brexit dividends' have not happened, nothing has really changed, it is the same party in power and they just aren't doing much different now we have exited the EU. The opinion polls show that a significant majority now think it was wrong for Britain to leave the EU. Basically Brexit could be percieved by the young as being told by the old to suffer chaos and hardship in the name of 'democracy'. So you can understand why they may think 'no thanks'.
It is other stuff as well, but I do think a lot of long term damage to our political culture was done by Brexit, which may lead to really perverse outcomes over time, of which this could be one such manifestation.
The bit I fear could be really messy is if the UK's pathway goes "It is the will of the people" via "It's not really the will of the people any more but we don't talk about it because Uncle Nigel will go off on one" to "This isn't what we want (and it's a bit rubbish) but it's too late to do anything about now."
Not the only possible pathway, sure, but not implausible, and if it happens, it won't be pretty. Especially for the remains of Uncle Nigel.
I think that was probably the case almost inmediately. The only thing propping up “Leave” support is grim awareness that going back in would be a hugely disruptive and unpleasant process in itself.
David Patrikarakos @dpatrikarakos #Russia 🇷🇺 has just fired Lt. General Berdnikov, its commander of the western military district. He’s been in post for 15 days.
Some time in the early 90s, Paul McCartney was lined up to play a private performance at Buckingham Palace, perhaps for some kind of reception.
Paul met the Queen beforehand and said he would be playing later in the evening, and would she be in the audience?
Oh no, said the Queen, it’ll be 8pm. I’ll be watching Twin Peaks.
Sounds like absolute bollocks, but was related by Angelo Badalamenti based on a story from Macca himself.
Sounds familiar. Someone rang into Radio 4 the other day with quite a convincing story that the Queen had told him The Full Monty was one of her favourite films, and that she used to watch it with her mother when it was raining, after he had made a joke s that the equerry's trousers with their velcro looked like stripper's trousers.
Her viewing habits weren't elite. Don't forget her education was rarefied only on constitutional rather than cultural matters. A lot she simply learnt and absorbed herself from the thousands of people she was around, both everyday and elite.
He's certainly intellectually curious. Despite the appearances of dog and horse-only life, his father had a huge library, and intellectual interests, that he kept quiet about, and his mother was naturally bright. I don't think Charles was particularly academic while at Cambridge, but he was always interested in a lot of stuff. He developed his intellect a bit later on, around the time he got interested in architecture.
Nobody serious takes Starkey the Sycophant seriously. He's a pantomime character.
As for Charles the King, would his "intellect" have developed before or after he wrote his ludicrous 2010 book "Harmony" in which he claims that the ratio between some function or other of planetary orbits being so close to the golden section makes a strong case for design? (I posted copies of those pages here a few days ago.) In 2010 the man was 62. He graduated (with a lower second) when he was 21.
I remember looking at the ratio and it was about 2% out. Many statements have been written about the pyramid complex at Giza, just to take one example, which check out much more closely than that. Archaeoastronomy is an interesting field, but way above that guy's head because he doesn't have the mind to distinguish between what's meaningful and what's probably coincidence. He has no intellect. He just goes "oh wow". He's a moron.
His eyes glinted when he used the word "harmony" in his recent declaration, which he placed between "peace" and "prosperity". It was as if he was saying, "You think I'm an idiot? You laugh at me, you think I'm simple-minded? Well, I'm going to show you some harmony now, you c***s."
Say what you really think ! ;.)
Charles is not a world-leading intellectual, but the way he's threaded together interests in architecture, spirituality and management of the land and earth is actually quite intellectually original - you could even class him as a key intellectual on others as a result.
What makes this cocktail somewhat impressive is also that he's dome at at time so against the grain of modern cynical and philosophically materialist thinking. Now his warnings in the 1970's on rivers and pollution, industrial farming and, in the 1980's, aesthetic ugliness also look a bit less mad. Poundbury used to be a running joke amongst architects, and his multicultural spiritualism thought too indulgent or far-fetched; not so much now.
Not really. Most people have views on those things and it's hard not to when you own or expect to inherit 30 palaces and houses and thousands of square miles, and the world's second largest church.
He is above all an entitled arse.
..
Please mods, if Leon's computer art is banned can we also see the end of the Readers' Dogshit Production Facilities slot?
Computer art is banned?
tis.
Quite liked this, particularly the dook. Come ahead, ban hammer.
Putin vibe. They dressed better back then.
While pursuing my duds activities I discovered that there's a tailor that specialises in Georgian/Regency tailoring. Maybe a bit too Sir Percy Blakeney for you but perhaps the next PB gathering..?
Comments
But does he have even half the monarch skills the queen had? Can he come across as charming and well liked and a national treasure and slightly mysterious and almost never alienate anyone ever? Can he be something we can largely all agree on? Can he be the subject of 'God save the King' without making the singer question too deeply whether this is something he wants to be singing? Let's hope so.
That said, the exit polls are far, far too close. We’ll have to wait til Wednesday
They lost 8% to Sweden Democrats
Women voters were attracted by female PM
They lost 14% to Sweden Democrats and 8% to Social Democrats
Actually. I can press the little x and access it.
Mysterious.
It is actually 40,000 votes separating the blocs! (Not 7,000)
From your second para I agree he largely still has to prove, but somehow I think he will. The very first thing he has to do is cut out any public displays of petulance such as with his pen yesterday, and then the pretty plentiful amiable curiosity that he often shows at many other times, both intellectual and for people, and as reported by many people, will be most likely to do the rest.
I'm not an angry republican. I'm a republican in principle but it's not a big issue for me and if a monarch can make monarchy work - like the last one did - I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist about it.
BTW, Ballard is only place in the world (I think) where you may encounter anti-Swedish sentiment.
Among old Norskis! Who aren't exactly crazy about Finns and Danes either. Not sure of views re: Danes, Icelanders, etc, but reckon skeptical covers it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/11/republican-protesters-arrested-king-charles-proclamation-events
This constant reference to a “centre-right bloc” is extremely misleading.
Reinfeldt’s old 4-party “Alliance” was a proper coalition. That was never replaced
I am relieved King Charles and Queen Camilla plan to cull the hangers-on.
The best that Charles can do is be a so-so placeholder that preserves the memory of his mother and allows Prince William to take the crown without questions being asked as to "why the hell do we still have this ludicrous set up?"
Still not sure he will pull it off.
Left bloc 49.3%
Right bloc 49.2%
2022 election exit poll:
Left bloc 49.8%
Right bloc 49.2%
Changes
Left bloc: +0.5%
Right bloc: no change
Maybe God really is an Englishman.
No one party has a majority, and if a group agree a partnership of some type whoever leads it would still not personally have a democratic mandate, so they would be free to select whomsoever they wanted.
No more anti-democratic than the largest party not forming the government, if a smaller party is able to form alliances to do so, like Ardern did.
I certainly don't agree with people being arrested for holding up a placard or shouting over others, no matter how tone deaf they're being at an event of mourning.
Tip to Scottish friends: make it clear that the Stone of Scone is not under any circumstances going back to Westminster Abbey, temporarily or otherwise.
https://www.aftonbladet.se/valresultat2022/
A total blackout in the Kharkiv & Donetsk regions, a partial one in the Zaporizhzhia, Dnipropetrovsk & Sumy regions. RF terrorists remain terrorists & attack critical infrastructure. No military facilities, the goal is to deprive people of light & heat.
https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1569036175217655809
Looking at the main Swedish Television Exit poll, it's right on a knife edge. In terms of seats in the new Riksdag, the centre-left is on 176 and the centre-right on 173.
Hardly surprising with the exit poll vote shares on 49.6% for the centre-left and 49.2% for the centre right.
It looks as though all the main parties will be back even the Liberals, much beloved of @StuartDickson and there could be no more than 40,000 votes splitting the two blocs.
NY Times live blog
The other side is, I agree, much harder to define but if we're talking Confidence & Supply for a continuation of the minority Social Democrat Government, it's possible there may be a slender majority for that.
The key thing about changing a political system is there has to be an active will to put in place an alternative. For so long as people aren’t particularly enamoured of a politician President then it will be difficult for there to be a groundswell of opinion for abolition.
What the republican cause really needs is a constitutional crisis where the crown can clearly be seen to have exerted undue influence. This is why so many supporters of a republic have been rubbing their hands with glee at a King Charles - because they think he is the sort of person who would do just that. I don’t think he will - I think that is over-egging the pudding. So long as he’s beige-middle of the road-inoffensive, he will be fine.
I do think the Crown (as an institution) needs to be held to account over how it operates especially with regard to its finances and where the public purse supports the Crown, we, as taxpayers, are entitled to know our money is being properly and effectively utilised.
Beyond that, I've no real issues.
I do, however, look forward to a day when the Prime Minister doesn't have to bow or curtsy to the Monarch - it's a sign of deference which belongs to another age. I suspect Charles rather likes and enjoys the formality - we can but hope William will be more easy going. Respect can still be shown.
This is the same experience I had in Italy two weeks ago. The food is often pleasant and generally what you expect. ALWAYS
Also believe that Queen Elizabeth II personified many of virtues inherent - or at least latent - in monarchical system. Whereas Donald Trump personifies many of the flaws of republicanism, some of the kind that helped bury Athenian democracy AND the Roman Republic.
Though personally still favor a republic over a monarchy. Due mostly to my raising & brainwashing!
Once told that to the guard giving me a tour of the San Marino capitol building, in reference to virtues of SM versus Liechtenstein. BTW he had nothing bad to say about Liechtenstein, but did tell me that he had dual SM-US citizenship, and was a registered voter in New York City.
Didn't ask (it was a long time ago) but am pretty sure this guy voted for Rudy Giuliani for mayor!
I see it as respecting the state (embodied through its human head) that I am loyal to and proud to belong to.
His side really do not want the retention of the monarchy to become an issue. Support for it is probably already lower than it was at the time of the platinum jubilee three months ago.
The time may soon come when monarchists won't be able to "God save the king" their way out of trouble, drowning out their opponents as Trumpers did by shouting "USA! USA!"
They are not England. They are not Scotland. They are not Britain. They are a bunch of saddo Tory bigots playing dressup.
Lol.
Path dependency perhaps, rather than causation, but, still.
If we have to go republic than of course it should one of those post-Anglo constitutions like Ireland or Germany with a respected non-entity as president.
Left 7.9% (8.0%)
Social Democrats 30.1% (28.3%)
Greens 4.9% 4.4%)
Centre 7.2% (8.6%)
Liberals 3.7% (5.5%)
Moderates 16.2% (19.8%)
Christian Democrats 5.7% (6.3%)
Sweden Democrats 22.5% (17.5%)
oth 2.1% (1.6%)
Turnout: ?
It is other stuff as well, but I do think a lot of long term damage to our political culture was done by Brexit, which may lead to really perverse outcomes over time, of which this could be one such manifestation.
I just think in the 21st Century such displays of deference look anachronistic but if you or anyone wishes to show that kind of respect to your Monarch, you have every right so to do.
Pure hunch!
Christopher Miller
@ChristopherJM
I recognize that building… that’s the Izyum district government building. And those are Ukrainian troops raising the blue-and-yellow 🇺🇦 and firing off a few celebratory rounds. Incredible.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1568995670794850304
I would agree that showing deference to an individual is anachronistic. But I view deference to the monarch as being respecting the position not the person holding it. And rather displaying deference to what the position is supposed to be representing, which is the people themselves.
There's no advantage to flipping to a republic for the UK except that it might help a small 'intellectual' minority feel philosophically consistent.
Unless the Exit polls are completely bonkers.
Not the only possible pathway, sure, but not implausible, and if it happens, it won't be pretty. Especially for the remains of Uncle Nigel.
However, I do expect some commonwealth countries to seek Republican status
In this country we very much like our constitutional monarchy indeed both Starmer and Davey and the Tories have backed King Charles IIIrd as our King, indeed so even have the SNP.
Support for our constitutional monarchy crosses across party lines, republicans tend to be Putin loving Corbynites like you! Plus Trump of course lost
Lavrov says Russia is not giving up on peace talks with Ukraine, but warns: "the longer the process is put off, the harder it'll be to make a deal"
https://twitter.com/maxseddon
===
Oh just fuck off, Lavrov.
Where I'm also guessing, respect and nostalgia for the only Queen most of them (and us) have every known, is trumping anti-imperial recriminations in the hearts and minds of most folks. With plenty of room left for conflicted or at least mixed opinions, and future developments.
BTW, regardless of what tabloids and some PBers believe, think having Meghan in the mix for Liz's Last Hurrah is a boon for Britain in general and the Royal Family in particular, in making friends and influencing people in places like the West Indies and among younger generations across the world, including the UK.
S 38% down
V 18% up
SD 12% up
M 12% down
C 8% same
MP 5% up
KD 3% down
L 2% down