Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
Source?
Ah, no, she called for a ceasefire in Ukraine which implicitly favoured Russia
I knew it was something to with Nazis, but not the details.
Had zero to do with Nazis, and Mrs Higgins has condemned Russian invasion of Ukraine.
She's a lefty AND a neutralist (like many Irish people) certainly NOT a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
A neutrality which clearly favours one side over the other doesn't seem very neutral to me, especially if dressed upin moral terms as some online do. I'd think a neutral would forego comment.
Are you basing this on what she actually said, or upon your impression of what she allegedly said?
Personally disagree to a degree with Mrs Higgins original statement, and consider it unwise, as she did herself upon mature reflection.
Which is NOT same as concluding that it was intended to "clearly" favor Putin. NOT in Irish context, and not (I think) in her case.
Well thank you for simply presuming my response is rooted in ignorance. I have read it, and her 'mature reflection' afterwards. Her letter was standard 'war is bad, mmkay' presumption that therefore anything is preferable to conflict, the offering of a false choice that on one side you have moral people who want to end war, and those who want war. It also seemed to me her primary concern in her reflection was irritation at being criticised. The 'I'm sorry, but' of responses. As in:
I cannot be but dismayed that people would find anything unacceptable in a plea for peace and negotiations when the future of humanity is threatened by war, global warming and famine,” Ms Higgins said.
But to the specific point you raise, whether someone 'intends' to favour Putin is hardly the point, as it is not the same as whether their words or actions actually do favour him.
To take a more extreme example Stop the War, for instance, may claim they do not intend to favour Putin, and some of them probably even mean it, but their words and desired outcomes clearly do favour him.
Should they be immune from criticism because they do not 'intend' it?
I also find the whole "nation in mourning" stuff very overdone. The Queen was 96 years old. This was expected and while it is a bit sad that she's no longer here, the whole narrative around it is just getting a bit much. It feels similar to the poppy wankers and NHS clappers finding enemies where few exist.
Accusing people of being insufficiently sad because of this is a few steps too far, I hope the BBC, in particular, calms down over the next few days.
There are some signs they’re recognising that, and recalling their impartiality remit. PM, for example, carried an unbiased interview with the Oxford protester. (Who was a pretty polite and respectful chap.)
'The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me, because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions. Although teachers do care and do work very, very hard, the institution is psychopathic; it has no conscience. It rings a bell, and the young man in the middle of writing a poem must close his notebook and move to a different cell, where he learns that humans and monkeys derive from a common ancestor.'
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
The pragmatic arguments for the monarchy are for me the most persuasive.
While I had great respect for the Queen, I don’t feel any particular grief for her. And while I am not going to disparage those who do, such emotion seems a very poor basis for continuing to support the institution.
When it results in violent displays like we’ve seen on the streets (which will hopefully remain rare), and monarchists seek to justify them, that leads me to question my support for the institution.
What violent displays?
Members here have "joked" that traitors should be hanged
No, that’s just the usual PB jerkery; no big deal from the usual suspects. I was talking about physical violence towards protesters.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
The pragmatic arguments for the monarchy are for me the most persuasive.
While I had great respect for the Queen, I don’t feel any particular grief for her. And while I am not going to disparage those who do, such emotion seems a very poor basis for continuing to support the institution.
When it results in violent displays like we’ve seen on the streets (which will hopefully remain rare), and monarchists seek to justify them, that leads me to question my support for the institution.
What violent displays?
Members here have "joked" that traitors should be hanged
No, that’s just the usual PB jerkery; no big deal from the usual suspects. I was talking about physical violence towards protesters.
But there hasnt been any. Two blokes shoved the Andrew guy. Where is the rest of this violence?
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
The pomp of succession is part of the point of it. I do wonder when they will have the coronation though, since we're about to have an awful winter financially, it won't look good.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
To determine that we need to know what a Ukrainian win is. The Anne Applebaum article I linked to this afternoon is really worth a read.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end? I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
We’ll see. But the US right’s argument that weapons supply to Ukraine was futile and wrong has been comprehensively refuted.
For pb foodies - that dish is “deep fried homemade pork belly with lime zest and pickled chili peppers”. Eat it with superb sourdough and down it with a large glass of fine ice cold manzanilla
Everything cuts through everything else. 10/10
Costs £7
The Spanish are now the best cooks in the world. Discuss
You could at least have apologised. We'd sympathise.
Anyone who gets "more republican by the hour" through people simply paying their respects to a funeral cortege or lying in state is sick in the head.
How messed up a human being do you have to be to be politically affected by that?
Because the monarchs are only human. And there is so much human misery people choose to allow, actively bask in, that could be prevented, and it is apparently more important that some rich person died. A rich person who was better at noblesse oblige than most modern rich people, sure, but at the end of the day just another aristocrat.
Like, if she's a celebrity you care about, that's fine. But to say we all should care is what I find strange.
Enforced monarchism is not democratic.
What's enforced about it? There are political parties to vote for who are explicitly republican, and its legal to vote for them.
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
The pomp of succession is part of the point of it. I do wonder when they will have the coronation though, since we're about to have an awful winter financially, it won't look good.
It likely won't be until the Spring and something to look forward to, unless you are over 75 you likely have no living memory of a coronation day and unless you are over 70 you won't have been alive for the last one
For pb foodies - that dish is “deep fried homemade pork belly with lime zest and pickled chili peppers”. Eat it with superb sourdough and down it with a large glass of fine ice cold manzanilla
Everything cuts through everything else. 10/10
Costs £7
The Spanish are now the best cooks in the world. Discuss
They dropped their shopping in a fuck off big pan and called it paella.
So you likely have to go back to Douglas Home for the first new PM who took over with their party in power who did not see their party have a poll lead after taking office
It just demonstrates how Johnson trashed the brand before he was ejected from office, thankfully
You are glad Johnson trashed the brand before he was ejected from office? Or did you mean "It just demonstrates how Johnson trashed the brand. Thankfully, he has been ejected from office"??
To be honest I have no idea how you interpret such a simple statement
Nowhere did I say I was 'glad' he trashed the brand
"It just demonstrates how Johnson trashed the brand before he was ejected from office, thankfully"
The sentence above says it. The implication it makes is that what happened was much better than Johnson trashing the brand after being ejected from office.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and rub shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
The pragmatic arguments for the monarchy are for me the most persuasive.
While I had great respect for the Queen, I don’t feel any particular grief for her. And while I am not going to disparage those who do, such emotion seems a very poor basis for continuing to support the institution.
When it results in violent displays like we’ve seen on the streets (which will hopefully remain rare), and monarchists seek to justify them, that leads me to question my support for the institution.
What violent displays?
Members here have "joked" that traitors should be hanged
No, that’s just the usual PB jerkery; no big deal from the usual suspects. I was talking about physical violence towards protesters.
But there hasnt been any. Two blokes shoved the Andrew guy. Where is the rest of this violence?
Quite. This is a deeply civilised and largely civil country who generally disapprove of bad manners. Endless people forecast chaos, hatred and violence. They are almost universally wrong. It’s something to be proud of.
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963
It is, but it is far too much 24/7 coverage and ironically I do think the excess coverage is not helping to assuage critics
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
Source?
Ah, no, she called for a ceasefire in Ukraine which implicitly favoured Russia
I knew it was something to with Nazis, but not the details.
Had zero to do with Nazis, and Mrs Higgins has condemned Russian invasion of Ukraine.
She's a lefty AND a neutralist (like many Irish people) certainly NOT a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
She suggested that Zelensky was immoral to continue the war and her letter won the support of the Russian regime.
Basing opinion what what you think "she suggested" is NOT compellingly persuasive to me.
NOR is quoting a lying Putinist puppet (regardless of the type-size). Though that quote shows WHY Mrs Higgin's statement was a mistake. Which she herself admitted.
NOT because of what she meant to say. But rather because of the way her words would be - and were - twisted. Are still are being twisted.
Calling Mrs Higgins a Nazi sympathizer is disgraceful. And claiming she's a Putinist is laughable.
Certainly SHE never stated, on the eve of invasion, that the Ukrainians should just lie back and let themselves be raped, because the West wouldn't lift a finger for them.
Ask the Ukrainian war refugees in Ireland today if they agree with THAT opinion.
@sentdefender Ukrainian and Western Intelligence is reporting that Russian Military Command has not recently deployed any additional Battalion Tactical Groups into Ukraine and seems to have suspended all further Combat Deployments into the Country.
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
I’m more surprised when people agree with me.
How often have people here experienced someone completely changing their mind as a result of an argument that we've made? I've only experienced it twice in a lifetime of politics - lots of "Hmm, I see what you mean" and "There may be something in that", but almost never "My God, you're absolutely right and I was completely wrong". In both cases, I gazed at the convert in open-mouthed astonishment, wondering if he was taking the piss (apparently not!).
You could at least have apologised. We'd sympathise.
Anyone who gets "more republican by the hour" through people simply paying their respects to a funeral cortege or lying in state is sick in the head.
How messed up a human being do you have to be to be politically affected by that?
Because the monarchs are only human. And there is so much human misery people choose to allow, actively bask in, that could be prevented, and it is apparently more important that some rich person died. A rich person who was better at noblesse oblige than most modern rich people, sure, but at the end of the day just another aristocrat.
Like, if she's a celebrity you care about, that's fine. But to say we all should care is what I find strange.
Enforced monarchism is not democratic.
What's enforced about it? There are political parties to vote for who are explicitly republican, and its legal to vote for them.
Indeed, the Green Party is a pro Republic party for example
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
The pomp of succession is part of the point of it. I do wonder when they will have the coronation though, since we're about to have an awful winter financially, it won't look good.
It likely won't be until the Spring and something to look forward to, unless you are over 75 you likely have no living memory of a coronation day and unless you are over 70 you won't have been alive for the last one
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963
It is, but it is far too much 24/7 coverage and ironically I do think the excess coverage is not helping to assuage critics
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
This has not happened for 70 years and will be over in a week.
It is not even on most channels apart from BBC1 except for the news and people also have Netflix etc
I also find the whole "nation in mourning" stuff very overdone. The Queen was 96 years old. This was expected and while it is a bit sad that she's no longer here, the whole narrative around it is just getting a bit much. It feels similar to the poppy wankers and NHS clappers finding enemies where few exist.
Accusing people of being insufficiently sad because of this is a few steps too far, I hope the BBC, in particular, calms down over the next few days.
Yeah but you don't like anyone 70 years or older do you?
@sentdefender Ukrainian and Western Intelligence is reporting that Russian Military Command has not recently deployed any additional Battalion Tactical Groups into Ukraine and seems to have suspended all further Combat Deployments into the Country.
I’d be tempted to withdraw to pre-February lines and pretend the whole special operation never happened.
This is what they said about recent events:
“To achieve the goals of the special military operation to liberate Donbas, a decision was made to regroup Russian troops stationed in the Balakliya and Izyum regions, to bolster efforts along the Donetsk front,” Russia's defense ministry said in a statement.
That is, the operation is to 'liberate' Donbas. Now, one might argue then what the bloody hell was all that assault on Kyiv business, or Kherson, or Melipotol and so on, but it could suggest that they are going to try to reframe their goals as purely being Donbas, in which case retreat elsehwere is not really failure.
Not sure how they can sell that, especially as even in the early days of the invasion they've never taken the entire Donbas, but they could try.
I do think we will see western commentators who ridiculed the idea of an invasion claiming that the Donbas alone was obviously the goal all along, but that would make no sense given how much effort has been expended elsewhere.
The Russians also have 25,000 troops trapped in Kherson, which is about a quarter of their original force. It's going to be devastating for Kremlin PR when Ukraine captures most of them as POWs.
I’d be tempted to withdraw to pre-February lines and pretend the whole special operation never happened.
This is what they said about recent events:
“To achieve the goals of the special military operation to liberate Donbas, a decision was made to regroup Russian troops stationed in the Balakliya and Izyum regions, to bolster efforts along the Donetsk front,” Russia's defense ministry said in a statement.
That is, the operation is to 'liberate' Donbas. Now, one might argue then what the bloody hell was all that assault on Kyiv business, or Kherson, or Melipotol and so on, but it could suggest that they are going to try to reframe their goals as purely being Donbas, in which case retreat elsehwere is not really failure.
Not sure how they can sell that, especially as even in the early days of the invasion they've never taken the entire Donbas, but they could try.
I do think we will see western commentators who ridiculed the idea of an invasion claiming that the Donbas alone was obviously the goal all along, but that would make no sense given how much effort has been expended elsewhere.
The Russians also have 25,000 troops trapped in Kherson, which is about a quarter of their original force. It's going to be devastating for Kremlin PR when Ukraine captures most of them as POWs.
Going to present serious difficulties for the Ukrainians though, in terms of feeding and guarding them.
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
I’m more surprised when people agree with me.
How often have people here experienced someone completely changing their mind as a result of an argument that we've made? I've only experienced it twice in a lifetime of politics - lots of "Hmm, I see what you mean" and "There may be something in that", but almost never "My God, you're absolutely right and I was completely wrong". In both cases, I gazed at the convert in open-mouthed astonishment, wondering if he was taking the piss (apparently not!).
Its usually a case of who gets bored first. The tyrrany of repetitiveness
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
Source?
Ah, no, she called for a ceasefire in Ukraine which implicitly favoured Russia
I knew it was something to with Nazis, but not the details.
Had zero to do with Nazis, and Mrs Higgins has condemned Russian invasion of Ukraine.
She's a lefty AND a neutralist (like many Irish people) certainly NOT a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
She suggested that Zelensky was immoral to continue the war and her letter won the support of the Russian regime.
Basing opinion what what you think "she suggested" is NOT compellingly persuasive to me.
NOR is quoting a lying Putinist puppet (regardless of the type-size). Though that quote shows WHY Mrs Higgin's statement was a mistake. Which she herself admitted.
NOT because of what she meant to say. But rather because of the way her words would be - and were - twisted. Are still are being twisted.
Calling Mrs Higgins a Nazi sympathizer is disgraceful. And claiming she's a Putinist is laughable.
Certainly SHE never stated, on the eve of invasion, that the Ukrainians should just lie back and let themselves be raped, because the West wouldn't lift a finger for them.
Ask the Ukrainian war refugees in Ireland today if they agree with THAT opinion.
I've not said she was a nazi sympathiser or putinist, so I hope you are not basing your opinion of anyone who criticised her based on what you think people who have are suggesting rather than what they are.
What I will do, having also rechecked her letter, is say that her moral grandstanding 'neutrality' definitely favoured the Russian position and so was not neutrality at all, even if she thinks it was.
It's been a phony position all through this war from some quarters to act like 'not' calling for peace immediately is a bad thing. Which I find very strange - most people believe that some things are worth fighting for, so being 'dismayed' that people would think a ceasefire immediately, which would cement Russian gains, is a bad idea, is very tone deaf at the very least.
One thing that's becoming clear to me from it is just how much damage the ECB have done to their reputation by launching the Hundred with all that abuse of existing supporters. Almost Putinesque in the scale of self-immolation.
I quite like the 💯 but then I don’t support a county. If I did and saw all that money being drained away I would not be happy.
The end game is franchise for 4 day game too. ECB has long wanted to make a better standard of County cricket, to rival Australian Sheffield Shield.
I’m split on the hundred. Personally cannot watch it as the crap on the screen is distracting. I accept I’m not the audience. Some of my cricket buddies love it, some hate it. But I do worry about the end game.
Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
It's performance art. We're all middle-aged, well-heeled people, more or less (some very rich). But, at times like this, some people like to perform as downtrodden proletarians like Pere Duchesne.
The average PBer is more likely to have a degree than the average voter and certainly more likely to have a postgraduate degree and less likely to have voted Leave. They are therefore more likely to be republican than the average voter too
All three of those comments are ace!
The "you're the elite" line against the republicans won't hold for long. They tried that with the Countryside Alliance operation - the British Field Sports Society under a different name - saying things like "I'm a nurse, and I love foxhunting. Gorblimey, so I do, guvnor." They tried it with success against the "red wall", but that's three years ago now. Those cartridges are all spent. But go on, fight the last war.
Imagine people who support the royal family - social hierarchy in extremely concentrated form - claiming they're more in tune with the bulk of the population than those who want to get rid of the royal family. It's ludicrous. Not everyone watches f***ing Coronation Street or listens to the Archers. I wonder whether there will even be another coronation to name streets after. What will they do - station cops to guard the road signs 24/7? Maybe types who think the Kray brothers were "real Eastenders" might be in favour. So that's a couple of dozen supporters.
There's a limit to the utility of the "Hasn't the queen mother got a lovely smile?" and "The queen - she's a national fixture, isn't she?" memes.
The monarchists have already, in a matter of days, BACKED DOWN on
* whether there'll be a travelling Fat Fingers and Bondage Girl show
* whether football matches will all be stopped
* whether Harry's going to be accepted as other than untouchable
But, monarchists are more in touch with the median voter than you are.
At the moment. I think if you asked someone "is it okay for people to have immense wealth and the power to veto your laws just because of their bloodline proximity to some guy a few hundred years ago" most people would say no; the moment you talk about Lizzie specifically or the Windsor family in general the public may support them more.
My thinking is that the more obvious the monarchy is, the more you can make the absurdity of it as an institution in modern times clear to most people. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can only go based off the polling, which shows a steep decline in popularity for the royals compared to Lizzie herself, and the reality I'm living in; one where my friends and family and coworkers seem sincerely saddened by the news that the Queen died, but are kind of uncomfortable with the realisation that, yes, we now will have a King followed by more kings and that the institution means something separate from just Good Ole Liz.
I think many monarchists here underestimate how much support for the monarchy was actually just people liking the Queen. Republicans will have almost the opposite issue; that the monarchs power is abstract enough that it doesn't seem to impact material life, so why should it be a point of political contention.
In practice, though, while the monarch has the power to veto the democratic process, it's really a power which can only be used once. Once it became apparent that the monarch was getting involved in that side of government, there would no longer be support for a monarchy. Once there is no longer support for a monarchy, there is no longer a monarchy. It is a power which only exists as long as it is not used. As you say, it is abstract - as long as the monarch's decisions don't impact people's lives I think it will be a hornets' nest unpoked.
I don't know how representative I am, but I recognise your description: I'm both saddened by the death of good old Liz (whom I really can't look at without smiling - she is a very small, very old, very, very unthreatening, smiley old lady who likes dogs and horses and dresses in tartan skirts like yer proper grandmother and is very very tactful and who, no doubt along with a team of excellent speechwriters, always, always finds the right words for the occasion) and uncomfortable with the the idea that we now have a king (whose sincere intentions towards the job I don't doubt, but whose charms are yet to be made apparent to the wider public). A queen was just what - for almost all of us - we had always had; a king is a stranger and more medeival prospect.
This goes back to my position on the absurdity / paradox of the monarchy.
If the monarch has no real power, what is the issue with not having it and replacing it with an elected president, or not replacing it at all? If the monarch does have real power, then how is it justifiable that that power is inheritable and related to your special bloodline? It cannot both be true that the monarch is really only ceremonial, but having an elected president would create a political power problem that threatens parliament, because if we transfer only the powers of the monarch to an elected president and that threatens democracy, surely the monarch threatens democracy? And if the justification of why the monarch is no threat is that they are just bred different / brought up to rule, how does that not delegitimise all liberal democratic ideals?
Much of republicanism boils down to the fact it works in practice but not in theory.
The rule is actually very simple: if a monarch exercises power against the advice of his/her ministers and advisors the monarch or the monarchy ends very quickly.
We came closest to this in 1936. The post-war Attlee government would almost certainly have pushed a republic had Edward VIII stayed on the throne, been arrested/marginalised/exiled as a quisling or Nazi sympathiser.
So what is the point of them? If they only do what they're told anyway, why do we need them? Why not just get rid of them, and avoid the possibility that a random assertive monarch will turn up?
And republics don't work in practice? That's a silly thing to say - we have two as neighbours, and the current global hegemon is one.
The USA is convulsed by political problems, and Ireland is a total irrelevance with a President no-one knows the name of or cares about.
The British monarchy has been a hugely stabilising and unifying force in our national life, has created a global organisation for individual freedom and human rights, and is a huge projector of British soft power.
If you need reminding of this then you're really not thinking very hard.
Michael D. Higgins, no?
And do I remember his wife expressing pro-Nazi sentiments or something along those lines and having to be slapped down?
Source?
Ah, no, she called for a ceasefire in Ukraine which implicitly favoured Russia
I knew it was something to with Nazis, but not the details.
Had zero to do with Nazis, and Mrs Higgins has condemned Russian invasion of Ukraine.
She's a lefty AND a neutralist (like many Irish people) certainly NOT a Nazi or Nazi sympathizer.
A neutrality which clearly favours one side over the other doesn't seem very neutral to me, especially if dressed upin moral terms as some online do. I'd think a neutral would forego comment.
Are you basing this on what she actually said, or upon your impression of what she allegedly said?
Personally disagree to a degree with Mrs Higgins original statement, and consider it unwise, as she did herself upon mature reflection.
Which is NOT same as concluding that it was intended to "clearly" favor Putin. NOT in Irish context, and not (I think) in her case.
Well thank you for simply presuming my response is rooted in ignorance. I have read it, and her 'mature reflection' afterwards. Her letter was standard 'war is bad, mmkay' presumption that therefore anything is preferable to conflict, the offering of a false choice that on one side you have moral people who want to end war, and those who want war. It also seemed to me her primary concern in her reflection was irritation at being criticised. The 'I'm sorry, but' of responses. As in:
I cannot be but dismayed that people would find anything unacceptable in a plea for peace and negotiations when the future of humanity is threatened by war, global warming and famine,” Ms Higgins said.
But to the specific point you raise, whether someone 'intends' to favour Putin is hardly the point, as it is not the same as whether their words or actions actually do favour him.
To take a more extreme example Stop the War, for instance, may claim they do not intend to favour Putin, and some of them probably even mean it, but their words and desired outcomes clearly do favour him.
Should they be immune from criticism because they do not 'intend' it?
I can agree with much of what you say, but without endorsing your conclusion.
Mrs Higgins was certainly NOT immune from criticism. Including from me. Just object to it being taken to point of saying - or implying - she's a Nazi sympathizer. OR anything close to it.
I’d be tempted to withdraw to pre-February lines and pretend the whole special operation never happened.
This is what they said about recent events:
“To achieve the goals of the special military operation to liberate Donbas, a decision was made to regroup Russian troops stationed in the Balakliya and Izyum regions, to bolster efforts along the Donetsk front,” Russia's defense ministry said in a statement.
That is, the operation is to 'liberate' Donbas. Now, one might argue then what the bloody hell was all that assault on Kyiv business, or Kherson, or Melipotol and so on, but it could suggest that they are going to try to reframe their goals as purely being Donbas, in which case retreat elsehwere is not really failure.
Not sure how they can sell that, especially as even in the early days of the invasion they've never taken the entire Donbas, but they could try.
I do think we will see western commentators who ridiculed the idea of an invasion claiming that the Donbas alone was obviously the goal all along, but that would make no sense given how much effort has been expended elsewhere.
The Russians also have 25,000 troops trapped in Kherson, which is about a quarter of their original force. It's going to be devastating for Kremlin PR when Ukraine captures most of them as POWs.
"As Russia suffered its most humiliating defeat since the initial stage of the war in Ukraine, cracks emerged in the official narrative as lawmakers and pundits on state television cast doubt on Moscow’s prospects.
While some urged the Kremlin to start peace negotiations, others demanded that its forces double down."
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
To determine that we need to know what a Ukrainian win is. The Anne Applebaum article I linked to this afternoon is really worth a read.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end? I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
We’ll see.
But the US right’s argument that weapons supply to Ukraine was futile and wrong has been comprehensively refuted.
Sure. And that is a good thing, no question. And Biden deserves credit for his judgment. But the hard bit here is still to come.
One thing that's becoming clear to me from it is just how much damage the ECB have done to their reputation by launching the Hundred with all that abuse of existing supporters. Almost Putinesque in the scale of self-immolation.
I quite like the 💯 but then I don’t support a county. If I did and saw all that money being drained away I would not be happy.
The end game is franchise for 4 day game too. ECB has long wanted to make a better standard of County cricket, to rival Australian Sheffield Shield.
I’m split on the hundred. Personally cannot watch it as the crap on the screen is distracting. I accept I’m not the audience. Some of my cricket buddies love it, some hate it. But I do worry about the end game.
Perhaps the ECB should rather ask themselves why a country with a population three times as large as Australia cannot support three times as many teams.
And the reason is because cricket has been almost driven out of the lives of the majority of the population, especially those not in private schools.
So we are drawing on, in effect, around 10% of the population for our cricketers.
Hard to see how reducing the number of first class cricket sides would do anything other than exacerbate the problem.
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
I’m more surprised when people agree with me.
How often have people here experienced someone completely changing their mind as a result of an argument that we've made? I've only experienced it twice in a lifetime of politics - lots of "Hmm, I see what you mean" and "There may be something in that", but almost never "My God, you're absolutely right and I was completely wrong". In both cases, I gazed at the convert in open-mouthed astonishment, wondering if he was taking the piss (apparently not!).
I'm guessing this did not take place in the Commons?
(Actually I recall you saying Letwin, I think, did so acknowledge once)
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963
It is, but it is far too much 24/7 coverage and ironically I do think the excess coverage is not helping to assuage critics
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
This has not happened for 70 years and will be over in a week.
It is not even on most channels apart from BBC1 except for the news and people also have Netflix etc
It most certainly is on most channels and news channels are obsessed with it to the exclusion of everything else
If you can't see the danger or turn a blind eye to it, or even trumpet it, then do not be surprised if the popularity of the monarchy takes quite a dive
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
I’m more surprised when people agree with me.
How often have people here experienced someone completely changing their mind as a result of an argument that we've made? I've only experienced it twice in a lifetime of politics - lots of "Hmm, I see what you mean" and "There may be something in that", but almost never "My God, you're absolutely right and I was completely wrong". In both cases, I gazed at the convert in open-mouthed astonishment, wondering if he was taking the piss (apparently not!).
In my humble experience, any (very limited success) at changing the minds of others, has NOT been a "road to Damascus" lightning bot of pure persuasion, but rather a drip-drip-drip of incremental impact.
PROVIDED I was on the right track in the first place, which naturally limits the odds even more.
As of now, 6,264 out of 6,578 electoral districts counted. BUT note that, according to official results webpage:
"The preliminary vote count continues on Wednesday, September 14, with a summary count, when the electoral commissions count the votes that did not make it to the polling stations on election day. The collection votes for the Riksdag are distributed among 314 collection districts."
S 30.5% SD 20.6% M 19.1% C 6.7% V 6.7% K 5.4% G 5.1% L 4.6%
According to (notoriously Swede-phobic) New York Times (Manhattan's answer to Svenska Dagbladet):
"With a little more than 95 percent of votes in electoral districts counted after Sunday’s election, officials said they had yet to count early mail-in votes and ballots from citizens abroad, and that the preliminary general election results would not be available until Wednesday at the earliest."
Note that currently the right bloc has estimated 175 seats (+1 compared to 2018) versus left bloc with 174 (-1).
Further note that at last election, 3 seats changed hands between parties from Election Night to final count.
So it's possible that the numbers bloc v block might flip. On other hand, any change could just be a lateral, that is party loses a seat to another party in same bloc.
Question: might overseas AND early postal votes be skewed one way or the other compared with votes already counted? And, if so, which direction?
My own highly un-educated guess, is that Swedish Democrats may NOT do as well with late, esp. overseas vote. BUT would differential (if it exists) be sufficient to do a flip? Or just a lateral?
Overseas votes (approx 200,000 of them) are strongly Moderate and Liberal. Poor for Sweden Democrats.
NYT report has incorrect adjective: it is *late*, not “early”, advance votes that will be included on Wednesday (not “mail in” either: they are physical votes)
@sentdefender Ukrainian and Western Intelligence is reporting that Russian Military Command has not recently deployed any additional Battalion Tactical Groups into Ukraine and seems to have suspended all further Combat Deployments into the Country.
I hope supplies of weapons to Ukraine will ramp up even further. It sounds bad, particularly as it has only been 6+ months, but the West has its internal divisions and financial problems, and it may have kind of needed an explicit example of Ukraine being able to make tangible gains in order to stiffen resolve amongst the backers (and their public).
Russia's already at the point of complaining it is unfair the Ukrainians get to be resupplied by the West, now make them drown in those supplies.
Biden, at least, gets it. Knowing our luck things will drag on reasonably successfully, then Trump wins re-election, the Ukrainians achieve the final bit of victory and he claims the credit.
One thing that's becoming clear to me from it is just how much damage the ECB have done to their reputation by launching the Hundred with all that abuse of existing supporters. Almost Putinesque in the scale of self-immolation.
I quite like the 💯 but then I don’t support a county. If I did and saw all that money being drained away I would not be happy.
The end game is franchise for 4 day game too. ECB has long wanted to make a better standard of County cricket, to rival Australian Sheffield Shield.
I’m split on the hundred. Personally cannot watch it as the crap on the screen is distracting. I accept I’m not the audience. Some of my cricket buddies love it, some hate it. But I do worry about the end game.
The Hundred can be fun, but its poor cricket. In fact, its gawdy. Its a peacock in a ballgown wearing all the costume jewellery in the shop.
For pb foodies - that dish is “deep fried homemade pork belly with lime zest and pickled chili peppers”. Eat it with superb sourdough and down it with a large glass of fine ice cold manzanilla
Everything cuts through everything else. 10/10
Costs £7
The Spanish are now the best cooks in the world. Discuss
In terms of tummy-contentment per euro, very probably. The discipline of the menu del dia was/is a good one.
For all Franco was a murderous thug who managed to make Spain boring, for all his political system died the moment he did (for which Juan Carlos wins a hall pass or ten, frankly), Frank the Frog got that one right.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
To determine that we need to know what a Ukrainian win is. The Anne Applebaum article I linked to this afternoon is really worth a read.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end? I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
We’ll see. But the US right’s argument that weapons supply to Ukraine was futile and wrong has been comprehensively refuted.
And the really good news is that there's not enough time left for the Trump Cult to try to worm its way back into power before Putin is beaten. The Russian Army is completely rotten - dying on its feet from the effects of corruption, brutality and incompetence, as much as the damage being inflicted by the Ukrainians. Large parts of it are collapsing, and the Russian state is too knackered to make good its losses.
The main questions now are how much of Russia's ill-gotten gains can be held onto until Winter, and then whether or not the surviving Russian troops simply freeze to death in their trenches due to extreme neglect.
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963
It is, but it is far too much 24/7 coverage and ironically I do think the excess coverage is not helping to assuage critics
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
This has not happened for 70 years and will be over in a week.
It is not even on most channels apart from BBC1 except for the news and people also have Netflix etc
It most certainly is on most channels and news channels are obsessed with it to the exclusion of everything else
If you can't see the danger or turn a blind eye to it, or even trumpet it, then do not be surprised if the popularity of the monarchy takes quite a dive
Nope, currently University Challenge is on BBC2 and Coronation Street is on ITV and Motorway Cops on C5 for example
“Cherry gazpacho with prawn tartar and pistachio vinaigrette”
And more sherry! And more bread!
El Rinconcillo (founded 1670) does an Espinacas con garbanzos that will blow you away. Also a great example of how a place can be very touristy and very localsy at the same time with panache.
As of now, 6,264 out of 6,578 electoral districts counted. BUT note that, according to official results webpage:
"The preliminary vote count continues on Wednesday, September 14, with a summary count, when the electoral commissions count the votes that did not make it to the polling stations on election day. The collection votes for the Riksdag are distributed among 314 collection districts."
S 30.5% SD 20.6% M 19.1% C 6.7% V 6.7% K 5.4% G 5.1% L 4.6%
According to (notoriously Swede-phobic) New York Times (Manhattan's answer to Svenska Dagbladet):
"With a little more than 95 percent of votes in electoral districts counted after Sunday’s election, officials said they had yet to count early mail-in votes and ballots from citizens abroad, and that the preliminary general election results would not be available until Wednesday at the earliest."
Note that currently the right bloc has estimated 175 seats (+1 compared to 2018) versus left bloc with 174 (-1).
Further note that at last election, 3 seats changed hands between parties from Election Night to final count.
So it's possible that the numbers bloc v block might flip. On other hand, any change could just be a lateral, that is party loses a seat to another party in same bloc.
Question: might overseas AND early postal votes be skewed one way or the other compared with votes already counted? And, if so, which direction?
My own highly un-educated guess, is that Swedish Democrats may NOT do as well with late, esp. overseas vote. BUT would differential (if it exists) be sufficient to do a flip? Or just a lateral?
Overseas votes (approx 200,000 of them) are strongly Moderate and Liberal. Poor for Sweden Democrats.
NYT report has incorrect adjective: it is *late*, not “early”, advance votes that will be included on Wednesday (not “mail in” either: they are physical votes)
Thanks for correction - told you, the Gray Lady she's a Swede-basher!
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
I’m more surprised when people agree with me.
How often have people here experienced someone completely changing their mind as a result of an argument that we've made? I've only experienced it twice in a lifetime of politics - lots of "Hmm, I see what you mean" and "There may be something in that", but almost never "My God, you're absolutely right and I was completely wrong". In both cases, I gazed at the convert in open-mouthed astonishment, wondering if he was taking the piss (apparently not!).
It’s only happened to me once when some was complaining about the introduction of age discrimination and I pointed out that people needed to be allowed to work longer given the massive pension shortfalls we had.
Leon, of course, cannot but open his mouth but attract a bevy of new fawning converts.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
To determine that we need to know what a Ukrainian win is. The Anne Applebaum article I linked to this afternoon is really worth a read.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end? I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
@DavidL That Applebaum article has no answers and no insight to offer on the question of 'what happens next in the event of a Ukraine victory'. She is just suggesting that we should embrace the chaos of a collapsing Russia.
If people really think that the answer to all of this is to 'beat back Putin, get him overthrown' etc then they need to justify this by reference to what they see happening next. "Embrace the chaos" is an answer that is reckless to the point of being idiotic. Particularly given that nuclear weapons are in play.
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
I’m more surprised when people agree with me.
How often have people here experienced someone completely changing their mind as a result of an argument that we've made? I've only experienced it twice in a lifetime of politics - lots of "Hmm, I see what you mean" and "There may be something in that", but almost never "My God, you're absolutely right and I was completely wrong". In both cases, I gazed at the convert in open-mouthed astonishment, wondering if he was taking the piss (apparently not!).
It’s only happened to me once when some was complaining about the introduction of age discrimination and I pointed out that people needed to be allowed to work longer given the massive pension shortfalls we had.
Leon, of course, cannot but open his mouth but attract a bevy of new fawning converts.
Mainly, erstwhile left-wing, woke remoaners who suddently see the alt-right light.
It happens so often I am surprised there are any 'woke' still to find; they must be an endangered species.
There are a surprising number of Russian Baptist churches in this area, almost all along Washington state's main north-south route, I-5. (I believe SeaShantyIrish2 is right about the late Senator Jackson being partly responsible for that, just as he helped Jews leave the old Soviet Union.)
Russian Baptists were persecuted under the Czars and the Soviets, and now again, under Putin. As far as I know, they are peaceful people, who want to be left alone with their traditional religious beliefs.
(I am not a big fan of Angela Merkel, but I did commend her for standing up for another much-persecuted sect in Russia, the Jehovah Witnesses.)
One thing that's becoming clear to me from it is just how much damage the ECB have done to their reputation by launching the Hundred with all that abuse of existing supporters. Almost Putinesque in the scale of self-immolation.
I quite like the 💯 but then I don’t support a county. If I did and saw all that money being drained away I would not be happy.
The end game is franchise for 4 day game too. ECB has long wanted to make a better standard of County cricket, to rival Australian Sheffield Shield.
I’m split on the hundred. Personally cannot watch it as the crap on the screen is distracting. I accept I’m not the audience. Some of my cricket buddies love it, some hate it. But I do worry about the end game.
Perhaps the ECB should rather ask themselves why a country with a population three times as large as Australia cannot support three times as many teams.
And the reason is because cricket has been almost driven out of the lives of the majority of the population, especially those not in private schools.
So we are drawing on, in effect, around 10% of the population for our cricketers.
Hard to see how reducing the number of first class cricket sides would do anything other than exacerbate the problem.
Realistically the two tier county championship works, but you need to give it the priority it deserves, not have the title decided in late September by who gets lucky with the weather. Hampshire scraped a win last week with what would have been the last ball of the match. Both Surrey and Hampshire have two more games left (after the current Surrey match finishes). It’s Sept 12th already.
There is hope at grass roots. I help coach juniors and the club is over run by them. Keeping them is harder. Keeping cricket on free to air is crucial.
“Cherry gazpacho with prawn tartar and pistachio vinaigrette”
And more sherry! And more bread!
Seville = fine tapas, is hardly earth-shattering news tbh.
I’ve been here many times. It has stepped up several notches
This is not just tortilla with a quirk. Or tiny bits of pig cheek in wine
This is fucking serious cooking yet done in serious style, yet casually served like it is nibbles. Honesty superb
Well tbf I was last there in October 2018 and the tapas was sublime. Must go back soon!
Edit: Actually I had some rather lovely tapas a few weeks ago at, I kid you not, 'Breezy Ridge Vineyard' just south of Shaftesbury. Duck livers on toasted sourdough - sublime!
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
To determine that we need to know what a Ukrainian win is. The Anne Applebaum article I linked to this afternoon is really worth a read.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end? I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
@DavidL That Applebaum article has no answers and no insight to offer on the question of 'what happens next in the event of a Ukraine victory'. She is just suggesting that we should embrace the chaos of a collapsing Russia.
If people really think that the answer to all of this is to 'beat back Putin, get him overthrown' etc then they need to justify this by reference to what they see happening next. "Embrace the chaos" is an answer that is reckless to the point of being idiotic. Particularly given that nuclear weapons are in play.
Whilst forward thinking is a good thing in general, I do think this is expecting a bit too much of people. Is it really so unreasonable for people to be overwhelmingly focused on achieving the first step, victory for Ukraine? That, despite excellent news this week, is not exactly guaranteed, certainly not for all parts of Ukraine to be liberated.
I mean, if I am in a rapidly sinking boat I should still be worried about what direction I am headed, but I'd be a little busy trying to stay afloat to give it much thought.
On monarchy and republic ive vacillated at times but then when i see the grotesque levels of personal enrichment in US politics and in Westminster and elsewhere and the foul stench of corruption i can't be arsed to support another 'elected' trougher pushing more partisan shit.
It’s the partisanship that worries me the most. If a country becomes too politically polarised, it’s “headship” as an institution itself is at risk of being devalued. Look at the USA: while for many years they seemed to be able to see the presidency both as a political office and a unifying one, in recent years respect for the office itself has crumbled and it is weakening the ties that bind.
One of the things I have been very grateful for is that we had the monarchy through the Brexit process. The country got so bitterly divided about the whole thing I worry where we’d have ended up with a political head of state.
I quite like German or Irish idea of electing someone purely to act as a figurehead though the fact they only serve for a fixed term doesn’t help with the feeling of continuity.
Perhaps really what we should be doing is having an elective monarchy and voting a figurehead in for life, President Attenborough anyone?
But as with others on here, really I support our system because it’s the least bad, IMHO .
@Leon Cordoba, Cadiz and Jerez are all doable as day trips on the train, if you have never been. Cadiz in particular is a gem. Jerez is run down but pleasant. Cordoba mostly just for the Mosque-Cathedral.
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
To determine that we need to know what a Ukrainian win is. The Anne Applebaum article I linked to this afternoon is really worth a read.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end? I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
@DavidL That Applebaum article has no answers and no insight to offer on the question of 'what happens next in the event of a Ukraine victory'. She is just suggesting that we should embrace the chaos of a collapsing Russia.
If people really think that the answer to all of this is to 'beat back Putin, get him overthrown' etc then they need to justify this by reference to what they see happening next. "Embrace the chaos" is an answer that is reckless to the point of being idiotic. Particularly given that nuclear weapons are in play.
Nuclear weapons are definitely in play for as long as Putin is in power. Tickle his tummy and give in or let him know you aren't afraid of him. The only choices.
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963
It is, but it is far too much 24/7 coverage and ironically I do think the excess coverage is not helping to assuage critics
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
This has not happened for 70 years and will be over in a week.
It is not even on most channels apart from BBC1 except for the news and people also have Netflix etc
It most certainly is on most channels and news channels are obsessed with it to the exclusion of everything else
If you can't see the danger or turn a blind eye to it, or even trumpet it, then do not be surprised if the popularity of the monarchy takes quite a dive
Nope, currently University Challenge is on BBC2 and Coronation Street is on ITV and Motorway Cops on C5 for example
Nice quick edit there. Eastenders is of course on BBC2. I'm pretty sure that there's been nothing but royal programming and news (almost entirely about the royals) on BBC1 for the entire period since Thursday afternoon, save for 8-10pm on Sunday and, just coming up, 9-10pm tonight. Oh, and the occasional weather forecast, I suppose.
In the modern age you can argue that we have so much choice that one linear TV channel droning on about a single subject pretty much continuously for about twelve solid days (because this isn't going to let up until after the funeral) is no longer a big deal. But you can perhaps understand why some licence fee payers, especially older and more technophobic ones, might get a bit grumpy about having three hundred hours of almost continuous "the Queen is dead, long live the King" pumped out to the almost total exclusion of everything else.
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963
It is, but it is far too much 24/7 coverage and ironically I do think the excess coverage is not helping to assuage critics
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
This has not happened for 70 years and will be over in a week.
It is not even on most channels apart from BBC1 except for the news and people also have Netflix etc
It most certainly is on most channels and news channels are obsessed with it to the exclusion of everything else
If you can't see the danger or turn a blind eye to it, or even trumpet it, then do not be surprised if the popularity of the monarchy takes quite a dive
Nope, currently University Challenge is on BBC2 and Coronation Street is on ITV and Motorway Cops on C5 for example
Nice quick edit there. Eastenders is of course on BBC2. I'm pretty sure that there's been nothing but royal programming and news (almost entirely about the royals) on BBC1 for the entire period since Thursday afternoon, save for 8-10pm on Sunday and, just coming up, 9-10pm tonight. Oh, and the occasional weather forecast, I suppose.
In the modern age you can argue that we have so much choice that one linear TV channel droning on about a single subject pretty much continuously for about twelve solid days (because this isn't going to let up until after the funeral) is no longer a big deal. But you can perhaps understand why some licence fee payers, especially older and more technophobic ones, might get a bit grumpy about having three hundred hours of almost continuous "the Queen is dead, long live the King" pumped out to the almost total exclusion of everything else.
The Capture is on BBC1 at 9pm, plus there is BBC2 and BBC4.
But this is not the 1950s, there are multiple free view channels to watch, including ITV, C4 and C5 plus Amazon Prime plus Netflix plus Internet surfing etc.
You do not have to just watch BBC1 and if our main national broadcaster did not give full coverage to the death of one of our greatest monarchs after 70 years, who would?
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and run shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
What I like about the Monarchy is that the police and armed forces swear allegiance to the Monarch rather than the the government or a President (although the Monarch can't actually order the army into battle)
That should, in theory, be a big check against a government or politician becoming a dictator and turning the police and army against it's citizens.
The Bill Of Rights has just the right balance between the Monarch and Parliament IMO. I think it's a very neat work. The fact we've avoided revolution and unrest (except electorally with Brexit for example) and we haven't had a civil war since the 1640s is testament to that I think.... Though there were times during the 2017 to 2019 parliament that I wondered if we were about to reenact the civil war lol
We have had civil wars since the 1640s! Repeatedly, to 1746 (and arguably later when you count the Scottish rising in 1820 and Bossenden Wood in 1838). And Ireland.
@Leon Cordoba, Cadiz and Jerez are all doable as day trips on the train, if you have never been. Cadiz in particular is a gem. Jerez is run down but pleasant. Cordoba mostly just for the Mosque-Cathedral.
+1 for Cordoba. Some superb tiny back-street restaurants as well as the cathederal, which is a must-see - get there when it opens at (8:00 IIRC) to enjoy it on you own.
What I struggle with: why isn't everyone else? Why doesn't everyone feel the same way I do?
She was Queen for decades and decades for all of us and I don't think you get better or more self-sacrificing human beings than Elizabeth Windsor. She did so much for us, so consistently, and is a key factor in the making of a stable modern Britain, buttressed by an amazing organisation- the Commonwealth- that reflects our values.
I don't understand why others don't feel the same way, and it makes me even more upset when I detect indifference.
People feel differently about things.
That's just life, that is.
Indeed. Often puzzles me why everyone doesn't think like me.
I’m more surprised when people agree with me.
How often have people here experienced someone completely changing their mind as a result of an argument that we've made? I've only experienced it twice in a lifetime of politics - lots of "Hmm, I see what you mean" and "There may be something in that", but almost never "My God, you're absolutely right and I was completely wrong". In both cases, I gazed at the convert in open-mouthed astonishment, wondering if he was taking the piss (apparently not!).
I'm guessing this did not take place in the Commons?
(Actually I recall you saying Letwin, I think, did so acknowledge once)
Yes, he did, I'd forgotten that - good man. That makes three.
Idk, in Russia critics of regime, especially those appealing to moral arguments were traditionally called "demshiza": democrat schizophrenics. Sane, reasonable people accepted regime even if criticising its drawbacks. If you did not accept it at all, they'd question your sanity https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1569386646931488775
Tucker Carlson's top Russia-Ukraine war expert Douglas MacGregor, on Friday night: "This entire war may be over" soon, "right now things are going very, very badly" for the Ukrainians and they're "desperate," "they're losing once again just south of Kharkiv." https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1569321565531115523
Those on the American right ra-ra-ra-ing for Putin are quite a spectacle.
Reagan would be appalled.
Agreed. A Ukrainian victory might also be quite consequential in the midterms, and perhaps the Presidential, too.
While Senate Republicans have largely voted to support Ukraine, there are plenty of voices on the right (Carlson, and of course Trump himself) who’ve basically backed Putin.
In any event, it’s a huge win for Biden’s foreign policy judgment.
To determine that we need to know what a Ukrainian win is. The Anne Applebaum article I linked to this afternoon is really worth a read.
How does this end? With Putin following so many of his enemies out a window? Probably. But then what? Is Russia going to tolerate hundreds or even thousands of its men being prosecuted for war crimes? Do they pay to rebuild Ukraine? What happens to Crimea? To the people they have stolen?
Even putting the outside risk of a nuclear war to one side how does this horror end? I honestly don’t know. It’s deeply tricky.
We’ll see. But the US right’s argument that weapons supply to Ukraine was futile and wrong has been comprehensively refuted.
And the really good news is that there's not enough time left for the Trump Cult to try to worm its way back into power before Putin is beaten. The Russian Army is completely rotten - dying on its feet from the effects of corruption, brutality and incompetence, as much as the damage being inflicted by the Ukrainians. Large parts of it are collapsing, and the Russian state is too knackered to make good its losses.
The main questions now are how much of Russia's ill-gotten gains can be held onto until Winter, and then whether or not the surviving Russian troops simply freeze to death in their trenches due to extreme neglect.
What's Ramzan Kadyrov up to? Reports state that he is about to
People have been talking about the altercation between the member of the crowd in Edinburgh, and the protestor.
I have worked in central London, for quite a long time. Most years we would have violent , anti capitalist demos where, we were told by the protestors, we should expect to be attacked.
We are told, by some, that having your car tires slashed is just legit anti protest.
When certain minorities violently protest things they don’t like, often they have been carefully tolerated. The Sikh demo against that play comes to mind - they literally threatened violence and the police protected them and not the theatre.
Some years after uni, some protestor types I knew were in London for the first, peaceful countryside march. I was interested by their description of being fearful, terrified even.
While they had masked up to smash shop windows, that was fine. Because it was their side. Suddenly being in the presence of hundreds of thousands of people who didn’t share their worldview was…. inconceivably wrong.
Violence is always justified when the rocks are flying away from you, i suppose.
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963
It is, but it is far too much 24/7 coverage and ironically I do think the excess coverage is not helping to assuage critics
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
This has not happened for 70 years and will be over in a week.
It is not even on most channels apart from BBC1 except for the news and people also have Netflix etc
It most certainly is on most channels and news channels are obsessed with it to the exclusion of everything else
If you can't see the danger or turn a blind eye to it, or even trumpet it, then do not be surprised if the popularity of the monarchy takes quite a dive
There are a heck of a lot of people in this country who are upset at the death (even if expected), and the BBC for all its faults are moving the country on to the funeral and beyond. Republicans will always be republicans and will never change their spots. It has made me think of recent and remote deaths in my family, especially my Mum who died when I was a youth. I'm not stupid, I know a 96 yr old was always destined for this. As I said, a lot of people are upset.
If you aren't good luck to you, but don't expect us all to agree.
Pedo boy gets to wear uniform, Harry not. This is KC humiliating his own son in favour of his trafficky brother because that's what wounded self importance looks like.
Enough. Arsenic in his Epsom salts, and extra helpings for the Queen fucking Consort. What a monumental fucking shit.
To include family or not to include family in political ads?
In this area, there are three women candidates who are getting a lot of ad time, the state's senior senator, Democrat Patty Murray, Democrat Kim Schrier, the incumbent congresswoman in the swing 8th district, and Republican Tiffany Smiley, who is challenging Murray.
All three women are married (happily as far as I know). Murray has two adult children, Schrier has one child, and Smiley has three young boys.
You would not know about the Democratic women's families from their ads. Murray and Schrier never mention their husbands or children -- but Smiley's appear in most of her ads. That may be partly because she has a good story. After her husband lost his eyesight from a suicide bomber in Iraq, she had four guys to take care of, one blind, and three quite young. But Murray's and Schrier's missing families in their ads have begun to puzzle me.
(There is a detail about Dr. Schrier that may interest, for example, Dr. Foxy: In her first campaign, she was accused -- correctly as far as I know -- of refusing to accept Medicaid patients in her pediatric practice. Medicaid, of course, is the US program for poor folks.)
I'm just reporting this, not supporting it. I am a camera.
Let's hope he's a more responsible dog owner than his mother, who according to a number of reports was too lazy to ensure her dogs were properly trained.
Pedo boy gets to wear uniform, Harry not. This is KC humiliating his own son in favour of his trafficky brother because that's what wounded self importance looks like.
Enough. Arsenic in his Epsom salts, and extra helpings for the Queen fucking Consort. What a monumental fucking shit.
I wouldn't go that far... But I have a feeling all H&M have to do is hang in there a little longer (and make it up with William and Catherine at least superficially) and we'll see sympathy for them rapidly growing as KCIII popularity goes down the toilet...
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and run shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
What I like about the Monarchy is that the police and armed forces swear allegiance to the Monarch rather than the the government or a President (although the Monarch can't actually order the army into battle)
That should, in theory, be a big check against a government or politician becoming a dictator and turning the police and army against it's citizens.
The Bill Of Rights has just the right balance between the Monarch and Parliament IMO. I think it's a very neat work. The fact we've avoided revolution and unrest (except electorally with Brexit for example) and we haven't had a civil war since the 1640s is testament to that I think.... Though there were times during the 2017 to 2019 parliament that I wondered if we were about to reenact the civil war lol
We have had civil wars since the 1640s! Repeatedly, to 1746 (and arguably later when you count the Scottish rising in 1820 and Bossenden Wood in 1838). And Ireland.
@sentdefender Ukrainian and Western Intelligence is reporting that Russian Military Command has not recently deployed any additional Battalion Tactical Groups into Ukraine and seems to have suspended all further Combat Deployments into the Country.
The Ukrainian General Staff are reporting that this is because Russian soldiers are refusing to be deployed to Ukraine. Even in units of volunteers that have been recently formed.
Re the television- if a large chunk of the population was still stuck on the terrestrial 5 channels I’d be less likely to support the BBC dedicating most of the day to this - because I don’t actually think the constant coverage of death and despair is particularly great for peoples psyches.
You’d have to be made of stern stuff to have gotten through the last 5 days having watched all or most of this - yes it’s a fascinating bit of history but it’s all death and endings and sadness and sorrow. At least with many more channels and online platforms now people can dip in and out of it.
Luckily as much as some appear to like to protest otherwise it is relatively easy to escape from it all.
For me the biggest argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is the huge soft power the UK gets from having it. A UK president would not generate anything like the global interest as the Queen did for the last 70 years and nor the star power and projection of UK interests globally.
A democratically elected President simply replaces the PM and we get a situation in France where everyone knows Macron but no one knows (or cares) who the PM is.
If the president is like Germany, an appointee, then just as Germany the role will be completely overshadowed by the PM.
What we have successfully done in the UK is create a second centre of power, someone who the world's elite would very much like to meet and run shoulders with but someone who also has no real power. That, IMO, is unique across the world and smashing it up seems like it would yield nothing but negatives.
What I like about the Monarchy is that the police and armed forces swear allegiance to the Monarch rather than the the government or a President (although the Monarch can't actually order the army into battle)
That should, in theory, be a big check against a government or politician becoming a dictator and turning the police and army against it's citizens.
The Bill Of Rights has just the right balance between the Monarch and Parliament IMO. I think it's a very neat work. The fact we've avoided revolution and unrest (except electorally with Brexit for example) and we haven't had a civil war since the 1640s is testament to that I think.... Though there were times during the 2017 to 2019 parliament that I wondered if we were about to reenact the civil war lol
We have had civil wars since the 1640s! Repeatedly, to 1746 (and arguably later when you count the Scottish rising in 1820 and Bossenden Wood in 1838). And Ireland.
Quite so. HMG did deploy tanks specifically for the troubles, albeit not using them, and kept a detachment in Glasgow for some time afterwards IIRC. As they did in some other large cities and Ireland.
Celebrating the life of a national treasure is one thing. All the pomp, circumstance AND expense surrounding the succession is another.
The nation freezes and starves and this old caper carries on, no expense spared.
Ooh but it generates so much income for the nation. Not for me it doesn't.
So after the death of one of our greatest ever monarchs should we just have a close friends and family funeral only with wake at Mcdonalds?
Of course not, this will likely be the biggest funeral of a head of state globally since Kennedy's in 1963
It is, but it is far too much 24/7 coverage and ironically I do think the excess coverage is not helping to assuage critics
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
This has not happened for 70 years and will be over in a week.
It is not even on most channels apart from BBC1 except for the news and people also have Netflix etc
It most certainly is on most channels and news channels are obsessed with it to the exclusion of everything else
If you can't see the danger or turn a blind eye to it, or even trumpet it, then do not be surprised if the popularity of the monarchy takes quite a dive
Nope, currently University Challenge is on BBC2 and Coronation Street is on ITV and Motorway Cops on C5 for example
Nice quick edit there. Eastenders is of course on BBC2. I'm pretty sure that there's been nothing but royal programming and news (almost entirely about the royals) on BBC1 for the entire period since Thursday afternoon, save for 8-10pm on Sunday and, just coming up, 9-10pm tonight. Oh, and the occasional weather forecast, I suppose.
In the modern age you can argue that we have so much choice that one linear TV channel droning on about a single subject pretty much continuously for about twelve solid days (because this isn't going to let up until after the funeral) is no longer a big deal. But you can perhaps understand why some licence fee payers, especially older and more technophobic ones, might get a bit grumpy about having three hundred hours of almost continuous "the Queen is dead, long live the King" pumped out to the almost total exclusion of everything else.
The Capture is on BBC1 at 9pm, plus there is BBC2 and BBC4.
But this is not the 1950s, there are multiple free view channels to watch, including ITV, C4 and C5 plus Amazon Prime plus Netflix plus Internet surfing etc.
You do not have to just watch BBC1 and if our main national broadcaster did not give full coverage to the death of one of our greatest monarchs after 70 years, who would?
Could whoever programmed the HYUFD Bot perhaps upgrade the software so that it makes a stab at reading what was written and either ignoring it or responding constructively, rather than auto-generating a couple of pre-drafted paragraphs on the general subject in the manner of an especially dense politician? It would be much less fucking irritating that way. Many thanks.
I’d be tempted to withdraw to pre-February lines and pretend the whole special operation never happened.
This is what they said about recent events:
“To achieve the goals of the special military operation to liberate Donbas, a decision was made to regroup Russian troops stationed in the Balakliya and Izyum regions, to bolster efforts along the Donetsk front,” Russia's defense ministry said in a statement.
That is, the operation is to 'liberate' Donbas. Now, one might argue then what the bloody hell was all that assault on Kyiv business, or Kherson, or Melipotol and so on, but it could suggest that they are going to try to reframe their goals as purely being Donbas, in which case retreat elsehwere is not really failure.
Not sure how they can sell that, especially as even in the early days of the invasion they've never taken the entire Donbas, but they could try.
I do think we will see western commentators who ridiculed the idea of an invasion claiming that the Donbas alone was obviously the goal all along, but that would make no sense given how much effort has been expended elsewhere.
The Russians also have 25,000 troops trapped in Kherson, which is about a quarter of their original force. It's going to be devastating for Kremlin PR when Ukraine captures most of them as POWs.
Going to present serious difficulties for the Ukrainians though, in terms of feeding and guarding them.
Put them in camps adjacent to the Ukrainian power grid. Let's see how much of a bastard Putin is....
Pedo boy gets to wear uniform, Harry not. This is KC humiliating his own son in favour of his trafficky brother because that's what wounded self importance looks like.
Enough. Arsenic in his Epsom salts, and extra helpings for the Queen fucking Consort. What a monumental fucking shit.
The king won't last long. Harry isn't stupid and he has a backbone. He has matured amazingly since his Nazi uniform idiocy, the Las Vegas business, and Afghanistan. His spoilt toe-rag of a father will never mature.
What if...just imagine...Harry were to have written a few alternative versions of one of the chapters in his book...and he chooses the one that really gives his father the almighty kick in the b*llocks he deserves and he leaks a copy later this week? Bye-bye kingy. Bye-bye monarchy. Go for it, Harry.
All the build-up is in one direction. All the other side have got is to print articles saying trillions of admirers are flocking the streets, blah blah. They've got absolutely nothing else - oh, some stuff about the late queen. WTF has she got to do with anything?
Comments
I cannot be but dismayed that people would find anything unacceptable in a plea for peace and negotiations when the future of humanity is threatened by war, global warming and famine,” Ms Higgins said.
But to the specific point you raise, whether someone 'intends' to favour Putin is hardly the point, as it is not the same as whether their words or actions actually do favour him.
To take a more extreme example Stop the War, for instance, may claim they do not intend to favour Putin, and some of them probably even mean it, but their words and desired outcomes clearly do favour him.
Should they be immune from criticism because they do not 'intend' it?
is it because he's good at grooming
https://twitter.com/sophsa/status/1569080176562126849
PM, for example, carried an unbiased interview with the Oxford protester. (Who was a pretty polite and respectful chap.)
'The truth is that schools don’t really teach anything except how to obey orders. This is a great mystery to me, because thousands of humane, caring people work in schools as teachers and aides and administrators, but the abstract logic of the institution overwhelms their individual contributions. Although teachers do care and do work very, very hard, the institution is psychopathic; it has no conscience. It rings a bell, and the young man in the middle of writing a poem must close his notebook and move to a different cell, where he learns that humans and monkeys derive from a common ancestor.'
https://web.archive.org/web/20210526140820/https://www.thesunmagazine.org/issues/175/why-schools-dont-educate
I was talking about physical violence towards protesters.
But the US right’s argument that weapons supply to Ukraine was futile and wrong has been comprehensively refuted.
Everything cuts through everything else. 10/10
Costs £7
The Spanish are now the best cooks in the world. Discuss
The sentence above says it. The implication it makes is that what happened was much better than Johnson trashing the brand after being ejected from office.
Certain events should be covered, but outside these events normal news should be available not least the events in Ukraine
Remember it is only Monday and there is another week of this by which time I expect even loyal monarchist will be saying we need more balance
Indeed it is essential Charles and others review these excesses and trim down the grieving process, as frankly without it I fear the demands for a republic will grow
NOR is quoting a lying Putinist puppet (regardless of the type-size). Though that quote shows WHY Mrs Higgin's statement was a mistake. Which she herself admitted.
NOT because of what she meant to say. But rather because of the way her words would be - and were - twisted. Are still are being twisted.
Calling Mrs Higgins a Nazi sympathizer is disgraceful. And claiming she's a Putinist is laughable.
Certainly SHE never stated, on the eve of invasion, that the Ukrainians should just lie back and let themselves be raped, because the West wouldn't lift a finger for them.
Ask the Ukrainian war refugees in Ireland today if they agree with THAT opinion.
Ukrainian and Western Intelligence is reporting that Russian Military Command has not recently deployed any additional Battalion Tactical Groups into Ukraine and seems to have suspended all further Combat Deployments into the Country.
https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1569392150638460931
And more sherry! And more bread!
Well, sad little person who did it, keep pressing the button if it makes you feel better.
It is not even on most channels apart from BBC1 except for the news and people also have Netflix etc
It is so wonderful seeing fascists being handed their arses.
What I will do, having also rechecked her letter, is say that her moral grandstanding 'neutrality' definitely favoured the Russian position and so was not neutrality at all, even if she thinks it was.
It's been a phony position all through this war from some quarters to act like 'not' calling for peace immediately is a bad thing. Which I find very strange - most people believe that some things are worth fighting for, so being 'dismayed' that people would think a ceasefire immediately, which would cement Russian gains, is a bad idea, is very tone deaf at the very least.
I’m split on the hundred. Personally cannot watch it as the crap on the screen is distracting. I accept I’m not the audience. Some of my cricket buddies love it, some hate it. But I do worry about the end game.
Mrs Higgins was certainly NOT immune from criticism. Including from me. Just object to it being taken to point of saying - or implying - she's a Nazi sympathizer. OR anything close to it.
While some urged the Kremlin to start peace negotiations, others demanded that its forces double down."
NY Times blog
And the reason is because cricket has been almost driven out of the lives of the majority of the population, especially those not in private schools.
So we are drawing on, in effect, around 10% of the population for our cricketers.
Hard to see how reducing the number of first class cricket sides would do anything other than exacerbate the problem.
(Actually I recall you saying Letwin, I think, did so acknowledge once)
If you can't see the danger or turn a blind eye to it, or even trumpet it, then do not be surprised if the popularity of the monarchy takes quite a dive
PROVIDED I was on the right track in the first place, which naturally limits the odds even more.
NYT report has incorrect adjective: it is *late*, not “early”, advance votes that will be included on Wednesday (not “mail in” either: they are physical votes)
Russia's already at the point of complaining it is unfair the Ukrainians get to be resupplied by the West, now make them drown in those supplies.
Biden, at least, gets it. Knowing our luck things will drag on reasonably successfully, then Trump wins re-election, the Ukrainians achieve the final bit of victory and he claims the credit.
For all Franco was a murderous thug who managed to make Spain boring, for all his political system died the moment he did (for which Juan Carlos wins a hall pass or ten, frankly), Frank the Frog got that one right.
The main questions now are how much of Russia's ill-gotten gains can be held onto until Winter, and then whether or not the surviving Russian troops simply freeze to death in their trenches due to extreme neglect.
https://www.tvguide.co.uk/mobile/
Leon, of course, cannot but open his mouth but attract a bevy of new fawning converts.
This is not just tortilla with a quirk. Or tiny bits of pig cheek in wine
This is fucking serious cooking yet done in serious style, yet casually served like it is nibbles. Honesty superb
That Applebaum article has no answers and no insight to offer on the question of 'what happens next in the event of a Ukraine victory'. She is just suggesting that we should embrace the chaos of a collapsing Russia.
If people really think that the answer to all of this is to 'beat back Putin, get him overthrown' etc then they need to justify this by reference to what they see happening next. "Embrace the chaos" is an answer that is reckless to the point of being idiotic. Particularly given that nuclear weapons are in play.
It happens so often I am surprised there are any 'woke' still to find; they must be an endangered species.
Russian Baptists were persecuted under the Czars and the Soviets, and now again, under Putin. As far as I know, they are peaceful people, who want to be left alone with their traditional religious beliefs.
(I am not a big fan of Angela Merkel, but I did commend her for standing up for another much-persecuted sect in Russia, the Jehovah Witnesses.)
There is hope at grass roots. I help coach juniors and the club is over run by them. Keeping them is harder. Keeping cricket on free to air is crucial.
Edit: Actually I had some rather lovely tapas a few weeks ago at, I kid you not, 'Breezy Ridge Vineyard' just south of Shaftesbury. Duck livers on toasted sourdough - sublime!
I mean, if I am in a rapidly sinking boat I should still be worried about what direction I am headed, but I'd be a little busy trying to stay afloat to give it much thought.
One of the things I have been very grateful for is that we had the monarchy through the Brexit process. The country got so bitterly divided about the whole thing I worry where we’d have ended up with a political head of state.
I quite like German or Irish idea of electing someone purely to act as a figurehead though the fact they only serve for a fixed term doesn’t help with the feeling of continuity.
Perhaps really what we should be doing is having an elective monarchy and voting a figurehead in for life, President Attenborough anyone?
But as with others on here, really I support our system because it’s the least bad, IMHO .
Tickle his tummy and give in or let him know you aren't afraid of him.
The only choices.
In the modern age you can argue that we have so much choice that one linear TV channel droning on about a single subject pretty much continuously for about twelve solid days (because this isn't going to let up until after the funeral) is no longer a big deal. But you can perhaps understand why some licence fee payers, especially older and more technophobic ones, might get a bit grumpy about having three hundred hours of almost continuous "the Queen is dead, long live the King" pumped out to the almost total exclusion of everything else.
But this is not the 1950s, there are multiple free view channels to watch, including ITV, C4 and C5 plus Amazon Prime plus Netflix plus Internet surfing etc.
You do not have to just watch BBC1 and if our main national broadcaster did not give full coverage to the death of one of our greatest monarchs after 70 years, who would?
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1569386646931488775
* give the Russian defence ministry a damned good talking to
* resign
* watch the Chechen "Akhmat" special operations unit give Ukrainian forces an "interesting surprise".
I have worked in central London, for quite a long time. Most years we would have violent , anti capitalist demos where, we were told by the protestors, we should expect to be attacked.
We are told, by some, that having your car tires slashed is just legit anti protest.
When certain minorities violently protest things they don’t like, often they have been carefully tolerated. The Sikh demo against that play comes to mind - they literally threatened violence and the police protected them and not the theatre.
Some years after uni, some protestor types I knew were in London for the first, peaceful countryside march. I was interested by their description of being fearful, terrified even.
While they had masked up to smash shop windows, that was fine. Because it was their side. Suddenly being in the presence of hundreds of thousands of people who didn’t share their worldview was…. inconceivably wrong.
Violence is always justified when the rocks are flying away from you, i suppose.
If you aren't good luck to you, but don't expect us all to agree.
Pedo boy gets to wear uniform, Harry not. This is KC humiliating his own son in favour of his trafficky brother because that's what wounded self importance looks like.
Enough. Arsenic in his Epsom salts, and extra helpings for the Queen fucking Consort. What a monumental fucking shit.
In this area, there are three women candidates who are getting a lot of ad time, the state's senior senator, Democrat Patty Murray, Democrat Kim Schrier, the incumbent congresswoman in the swing 8th district, and Republican Tiffany Smiley, who is challenging Murray.
All three women are married (happily as far as I know). Murray has two adult children, Schrier has one child, and Smiley has three young boys.
You would not know about the Democratic women's families from their ads. Murray and Schrier never mention their husbands or children -- but Smiley's appear in most of her ads. That may be partly because she has a good story. After her husband lost his eyesight from a suicide bomber in Iraq, she had four guys to take care of, one blind, and three quite young. But Murray's and Schrier's missing families in their ads have begun to puzzle me.
(There is a detail about Dr. Schrier that may interest, for example, Dr. Foxy: In her first campaign, she was accused -- correctly as far as I know -- of refusing to accept Medicaid patients in her pediatric practice. Medicaid, of course, is the US program for poor folks.)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square
That’ll get Franco Fan’s juices going.
The Russian War effort is teetering on the brink.
You’d have to be made of stern stuff to have gotten through the last 5 days having watched all or most of this - yes it’s a fascinating bit of history but it’s all death and endings and sadness and sorrow. At least with many more channels and online platforms now people can dip in and out of it.
Luckily as much as some appear to like to protest otherwise it is relatively easy to escape from it all.
One of my favorite novelists died yesterday—and I want to guide other readers to his amazing work. So here is a thread about Javier Marías.
First, you should learn about how Marías became King of a Caribbean island—just because of a novel he wrote.
https://twitter.com/tedgioia/status/1569397782699704322
Ukr has regained 6000 sq km in September.
That’s an area the size of Lincolnshire.
What if...just imagine...Harry were to have written a few alternative versions of one of the chapters in his book...and he chooses the one that really gives his father the almighty kick in the b*llocks he deserves and he leaks a copy later this week? Bye-bye kingy. Bye-bye monarchy. Go for it, Harry.
All the build-up is in one direction. All the other side have got is to print articles saying trillions of admirers are flocking the streets, blah blah. They've got absolutely nothing else - oh, some stuff about the late queen. WTF has she got to do with anything?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_vAxNjMyfc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LQPlnpkKkg