Howdy, Stranger!

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

LAB is grossly over-priced in the GE majority betting – politicalbetting.com

1235711

Comments

  • WillG said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    What a great post :+1:
    I think he or she is trolling us. No-one really think that.
    I do.
    The problem for republicans is that when Charles dies, the much loved William will takeover and few "swing voters" will want to depose the monarchy. Republicans need two bad monarchs in a row.
    Tad early to forecast that Prince William will remain "much beloved" by the time he inherits the throne.

    After all, his great uncle Edward VIII was "much beloved" as Prince of Wales and then King - until he wasn't.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,812
    edited September 2022

    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:

    "Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?"
    Zoe Williams


    The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)

    Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
    What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.

    Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.

    Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.

    Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:

    "Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?"
    Zoe Williams


    The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)

    Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
    What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.

    Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.

    Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.

    Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
    It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
    IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
    Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?

    Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
    Doesn’t India have a vast number of English speakers? 125 million or something like that? And growing very rapidly with the increase in the fraction of the population with good education?
    Yes - but it’s not in the security council, G7 or NATO or equivalent. So it’s useful that it has a direct link to a country that is. Of course India is significant enough that it could be partially heard acting independently but it judges it has more weight as part of a multilateral organisation. For smaller countries - a Rwanda, say - the calculation is even easier
    The Commonwealth is an community for the exchange of soft power, apart from the occasional meetings, it’s all about parliamentary, judicial, academic, and sporting links.
    That’s the public face, but the UK has been known to speak on its behalf…
    I’d like to see a more prominent Commonwealth.

    More funding for cultural programmes and more visibility for the flag. It would be largely up to the UK to increase funding but the country would benefit in increased soft power.

    Relatedly, It was an error for the Booker Prize to be extended to include the US.
  • WillG said:

    Why Ukraine Will Win by none other than Francis Fukuyama...

    https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/why-ukraine-will-win/

    Over the summer, when Russia had withdrawn from its initial effort to occupy Kyiv and the fighting was centered in the Donbas, a conventional wisdom emerged that Ukraine and Russia were locked in a “long war” (featured on the cover of the Economist). Many asserted it was inevitable that there would be a stalemate and war of attrition that might go on for years. As Ukraine’s forward military momentum slowed, there were Western voices arguing that peace negotiations and territorial concessions from Ukraine were necessary.

    Had this advice been followed, it would have led to a terrible outcome: Russia keeping the parts of Ukraine it had swallowed, leaving a rump country unable to ship exports out of its southern ports. Such a negotiation would not bring peace; Russia would simply wait until it had reconstituted its military to restart the war.

    Everyone’s got 20/20 vision in hindsight.
    A few truly egregious examples of this - one in particular - right here on PB.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,600

    Carnyx said:

    No Middle Eastern state is part of the Commonwealth.

    Another interesting tidbit: the Queen never visited Israel.

    We can blame the Duke of Windsor for that.
    Er, why?
    Was said in jest.



    BUCKINGHAM Palace has defended footage from 1933 that shows a young Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, performing a Nazi salute with her family at Balmoral.

    The film, obtained by The Sun, shows the princess, then aged six or seven, join her mother and her uncle Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in salute as she played alongside her younger sister, Princess Margaret.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/queen-elizabeth-nazi-salute-buckingham-palace-defends-footage/news-story/91c7ccd3f3dec06d72afbf4ff255dea1?nk=971876ced12cdf04282b0f644977b665-1662995372

    Somewhat less alarming than the footage of Prince Andrew @IshmaelZ posted earlier.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    148grss said:

    HYUFD said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    I doubt it, for starters William is more popular relative to Charles than Charles is relative to the Queen
    But for different reasons and amongst the same demo who revere the queen. I would also note that many (although nowhere near a majority) of Welsh people have already expressed unhappiness over the speed which William was given the Prince of Wales title after prominent and public campaigns to remove the title due to its history of being a title post conquest.

    Amongst the young, the monarchy is not particularly popular, and as Charles' reign takes hold there will be a greater level of scrutiny for all the royals, and generally less deference. Also if the continued media spectacle around Meghan continues, a reinforcement of current culture war lines will occur.

    Do you think the media and the public will treat Charles and William with the same tone they did Lizzie? I don't, and that is important to keep up the invulnerability of the monarch in the body politic.
    Answering a question you didn't ask, that will however make Charles a different kind of monarch. Yes he'll keep the toys and the palaces (most probably) but he has been cutting about for 50-odd years exposed to and able to have a view on many more diverse issues than Queen Elizabeth so he might be up for making the monarchy more relevant (whatever that means) and less repellent.

    What if anything could he do that would lessen your republicanism?
  • Carnyx said:

    No Middle Eastern state is part of the Commonwealth.

    Another interesting tidbit: the Queen never visited Israel.

    We can blame the Duke of Windsor for that.
    Er, why?
    Was said in jest.



    BUCKINGHAM Palace has defended footage from 1933 that shows a young Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, performing a Nazi salute with her family at Balmoral.

    The film, obtained by The Sun, shows the princess, then aged six or seven, join her mother and her uncle Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in salute as she played alongside her younger sister, Princess Margaret.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/queen-elizabeth-nazi-salute-buckingham-palace-defends-footage/news-story/91c7ccd3f3dec06d72afbf4ff255dea1?nk=971876ced12cdf04282b0f644977b665-1662995372

    Somewhat less alarming than the footage of Prince Andrew @IshmaelZ posted earlier.
    That footage was bullshit.
  • Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:

    "Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?"
    Zoe Williams


    The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)

    Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
    What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.

    Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.

    Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.

    Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:

    "Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?"
    Zoe Williams


    The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)

    Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
    What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.

    Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.

    Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.

    Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
    It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
    IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
    Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?

    Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
    Doesn’t India have a vast number of English speakers? 125 million or something like that? And growing very rapidly with the increase in the fraction of the population with good education?
    Yes - but it’s not in the security council, G7 or NATO or equivalent. So it’s useful that it has a direct link to a country that is. Of course India is significant enough that it could be partially heard acting independently but it judges it has more weight as part of a multilateral organisation. For smaller countries - a Rwanda, say - the calculation is even easier
    The Commonwealth is an community for the exchange of soft power, apart from the occasional meetings, it’s all about parliamentary, judicial, academic, and sporting links.
    That’s the public face, but the UK has been known to speak on its behalf…
    I’d like to see a more prominent Commonwealth.

    More funding for cultural programmes and more visibility for the flag. It would be largely up to the UK to increase funding but the country would benefit in increased soft power.

    Relatedly, It was an error for the Booker Prize to be extended to include the US.
    Agreed
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited September 2022

    Carnyx said:

    No Middle Eastern state is part of the Commonwealth.

    Another interesting tidbit: the Queen never visited Israel.

    We can blame the Duke of Windsor for that.
    Er, why?
    Was said in jest.



    BUCKINGHAM Palace has defended footage from 1933 that shows a young Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, performing a Nazi salute with her family at Balmoral.

    The film, obtained by The Sun, shows the princess, then aged six or seven, join her mother and her uncle Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in salute as she played alongside her younger sister, Princess Margaret.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/queen-elizabeth-nazi-salute-buckingham-palace-defends-footage/news-story/91c7ccd3f3dec06d72afbf4ff255dea1?nk=971876ced12cdf04282b0f644977b665-1662995372

    The grim traitor, whose documents I heard discovered on a programme a couple of weeks ago were chilling. "England will change its attiude to Germany, I believe, if there is significant bombing,"

    It's also no coincidence that the future Queen Mother is there, her letters to Halifax are confidential for the next 100 years. But it is all the more remarkable that George VI and the Queen emerged as so much significantly better himan beings from this dank and unpromising environment of the time. The lottery of monarchy indeed.
  • Off-topic:

    I missed the live stream, but Blue Origin's latest suborbital flight has gone sub-optimally. It was uncrewed, but the launch escape system appears to have worked well. High G-Forces for the experiments on board though.

    At one minute in at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v09RCNChe-w
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,349
    Perhaps the US could return to the fold?

    Obviously, they owe 250 years of back-taxes on the tea, but we could come to a deal on that.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,600

    Carnyx said:

    No Middle Eastern state is part of the Commonwealth.

    Another interesting tidbit: the Queen never visited Israel.

    We can blame the Duke of Windsor for that.
    Er, why?
    Was said in jest.



    BUCKINGHAM Palace has defended footage from 1933 that shows a young Princess Elizabeth, the future Queen, performing a Nazi salute with her family at Balmoral.

    The film, obtained by The Sun, shows the princess, then aged six or seven, join her mother and her uncle Prince Edward, the Prince of Wales, in raising an arm in salute as she played alongside her younger sister, Princess Margaret.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/queen-elizabeth-nazi-salute-buckingham-palace-defends-footage/news-story/91c7ccd3f3dec06d72afbf4ff255dea1?nk=971876ced12cdf04282b0f644977b665-1662995372

    Somewhat less alarming than the footage of Prince Andrew @IshmaelZ posted earlier.
    That footage was bullshit.
    I have seen it, and I can't unsee it.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    148grss said:

    MISTY said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    What a great post :+1:

    I think the anti-monarchists should be careful what they wish for. The end of the monarchy might also mean the end of the supremacy of parliament, for example, because a democratically elected president would require greater powers than the royals hold. Powers such as veto, for example, or tabling legislation.

    Much blood has been spilled, both domestically and abroad, to establish and preserve the Westminster parliament's supremacy over these islands.
    Well, why not have no head of state, then? If we want parliamentary sovereignty, have it. If the argument is the monarch doesn't really have a veto now (despite the fact they do), then why let them have a constitutional role at all. If they do have that veto power, then there is no mandate for them holding that power other than the supposed specialness of their blood and breeding - an abhorrent concept.

    On one level of course its indefensible, but I still think it works quite well.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626

    Off-topic:

    I missed the live stream, but Blue Origin's latest suborbital flight has gone sub-optimally. It was uncrewed, but the launch escape system appears to have worked well. High G-Forces for the experiments on board though.

    At one minute in at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v09RCNChe-w

    Thank fuck it wasn’t Virgin Galactic and their bullshit.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,294
    edited September 2022
    Just made a pitifully epicene Gen Z fuckwit void his Woke and neutered bowels with Fear
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,600
    Leon said:

    Just made a pitifully epicene Gen Z fuckwit void his Woke and neutered bowels with Fear

    Your Portuguese language lessons appear to be going well.
  • Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.
  • Notice pound has risen to 1.17 this pm
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719

    WillG said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    What a great post :+1:
    I think he or she is trolling us. No-one really think that.
    I do.
    The problem for republicans is that when Charles dies, the much loved William will takeover and few "swing voters" will want to depose the monarchy. Republicans need two bad monarchs in a row.
    Tad early to forecast that Prince William will remain "much beloved" by the time he inherits the throne.

    After all, his great uncle Edward VIII was "much beloved" as Prince of Wales and then King - until he wasn't.
    He was of course succeeded by his brother, so there is hope for Harry yet!

    However in reality the Edward and Wallace comparison holds better for Harry and Meghan at least in terms of exile abroad. William and Kate are both more sensible and Kate like the Queen Mother is pretty shrewd
  • Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:

    "Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?"
    Zoe Williams


    The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)

    Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
    What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.

    Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.

    Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.

    Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
    Cyclefree said:

    algarkirk said:

    Good old Guardian reverts to type with the headline:

    "Being a republican in Britain used to be perfectly respectable. So why are people now getting arrested for it?"
    Zoe Williams


    The strain of all the saturation Grauniad royal coverage is beginning to tell. (Law note: Being a republican remains entirely lawful. Being arrested for it would entitle you to substantial damages for wrongful arrest. A number of woke firms of solicitors would love the case.)

    Well, that is going to happen if your national broadcaster stops allowing any dissent and the police follow its cue. Considering his life's work, I don't think that's remotely what Charles even wants.
    What Charles wants or even what the late Queen would have wanted is not remotely relevant.

    Being a Republican is not an offence in this country and is not remotely a basis for arresting people.

    Where's the Home Secretary to tell the police to follow the bloody law? Oh, fuck ... it's Suella.

    Nothing is more likely to turn people away from institutions most of us value than bullying people into only one accepted opinion or expecting them to feel things they don't feel.
    It's not strictly constitionally relevant, but by extension it can't help but not be. His mother's pet global project of the Commonwealth was well outside her constitutional role, as his professed one of a more democratic monarchy. It may nor be constitutionally proper, but it's the spirit of the age, as Hegel would see it.
    IMHO, there's no real point to the Commonwealth if it doesn't include the largest English-speaking (by mother tongue) country, the USA, or if it doesn't include our nearest English-speaking neighbour, the RoI.
    Why do you want to dilute India’s importance?

    Including the USA would destroy the purpose - a way to represent the interests of the emerging world in the counsels of the west (via the UK, which obviously has its own interests but which are not as overwhelming as the US)
    The point of the Commonwealth, surely, is that it is not US.

    It would be nice to have Ireland rejoin (they left in 1949 I think) but probably not possible so long as the British monarch is head.

    Perhaps a special associate or observer status is possible for them.

    Apparently Suriname is likely the next joiner.
    I think Ireland rejoining the Commonwealth is the sort of move that would be necessary to make a success of reunification with Northern Ireland. It would be a signal from the Republic to Unionists that they were respected and that there was a place for them in a United Ireland.

    Currently would seem to be a hard sell in the Republic, though.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.

    It really isn’t. Just a few particularly noisy commentators.
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594

    Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.

    Plenty of Sex Pistols fans?

    By the way, did anybody ask John Lydon for his reaction?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited September 2022
    148grss said:

    WillG said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    What a great post :+1:
    I think he or she is trolling us. No-one really think that.
    I do.
    The problem for republicans is that when Charles dies, the much loved William will takeover and few "swing voters" will want to depose the monarchy. Republicans need two bad monarchs in a row.
    William is liked by the same crowd who liked Lizzie - he has no real popularity with the next generation of his subjects. Charles is just uniquely disliked by the typical monarchist - mostly because he is somewhat more political than his mother was, and is interested in some eco things.

    What will really do for Charles and William is the lack of deference that protected Lizzie for so long. She arose to the throne in a different era, and much of that was able to hover around her because of that. William will not inherit that along with the crown.
    Even 18 to 24s give William a 50% positive rating, just 25% negative, which is actually higher than they give Harry too.

    King Charles has a +19% rating overall, far higher than Starmer or Truss

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/05/31/platinum-jubilee-how-popular-are-royals
  • RobD said:

    Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.

    It really isn’t. Just a few particularly noisy commentators.
    It really is. Do you actually read NYT on regular basis? Or just rely on cherry-picking you see on PB?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,294
    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    Twat
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited September 2022

    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.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Carnyx said:
    Hannan is a libertarian Whig in his own words, not a Tory
  • pingping Posts: 3,724

    Notice pound has risen to 1.17 this pm

    Dollar slips ahead of US inflation report

    https://www.ft.com/content/19af922d-3353-4407-9918-87dc51a0fb20

    It has a lot to do with the dollar and little to do with the pound.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:
    Hannan is a libertarian Whig in his own words, not a Tory
    Oh? So stamping out free speech is a characteristic of the Tories?
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.
  • Sean_F said:

    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.
    Is that a type of zooplankton?
  • Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republic_of_Ireland_Act_1948

    By the eve of the 1948 Irish general election the United Kingdom Representative to Ireland, Lord Rugby, reported that the annulment of the External Relations Act was inevitable. He remarked 'No party has left the door open to any other course'. The result of the election saw a new Irish government formed under the leadership of John A. Costello.

    Costello made the announcement that a bill to repeal the External Relations Act was to be introduced when he was in Ottawa, during an official visit to Canada. David McCullagh has suggested that it was a spur of the moment reaction to offence caused by the Governor-General of Canada, Lord Alexander, who was of Northern Ireland descent, who allegedly placed loyalist symbols, notably a replica of the famous Roaring Meg cannon used in the Siege of Derry, before an affronted Costello at a state dinner. What is certain is that an agreement that there would be separate toasts for the King and for the President of Ireland was broken. The Irish position was that a toast to the King, instead of representing both countries, would not include Ireland. Only a toast to the King was proposed, to the fury of the Irish delegation. Shortly afterwards Costello announced the plan to repeal the External Relations Act.

    However, according to all but one of the ministers in Costello's cabinet, the decision to repeal the External Relations Act had already been made before Costello's Canadian visit. Costello's revelation of the decision was because the Sunday Independent (an Irish newspaper) had discovered the fact and was about to "break" the story as an exclusive. Nevertheless, one minister, Noel Browne, gave a different account in his autobiography, Against the Tide. He claimed Costello's announcement was done in a fit of anger of his treatment by the Governor-General and that when he returned, Costello, at an assembly of ministers in his home, offered to resign because of his manufacture of a major government policy initiative on the spot in Canada. Yet according to Browne, all the ministers agreed that they would refuse to accept the resignation and also agreed to manufacture the story of a prior cabinet decision.

    The evidence of what really happened remains ambiguous. . . .

    SSI - Perhaps it's just coincidence, but Lord Alexander was the LAST non-Canadian Governor General.
  • HYUFD got a job with the BBC?


  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941

    RobD said:

    Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.

    It really isn’t. Just a few particularly noisy commentators.
    It really is. Do you actually read NYT on regular basis? Or just rely on cherry-picking you see on PB?
    Their first opinion piece on the matter really set the tone.

    In any case, their anti-UK attitude is not in dispute.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,294
    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited September 2022

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    The very thought of that made me gulp. "A statement from Braverman".
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    Wouldn’t the Hone Sec intervening in a Scottish case be a trifle upsetting for our Scotch* Friends?

    *23 minutes till cocktail hour for me…..
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    Quite so, though hauling them off might be expedient to prevent a row escalating to a fight (especially given the characteristic of certain opposed groups). But taking them to court ...

    This is not going to go down well with some of the Scottish left-wing voters, and indeed some of the middle ones.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    edited September 2022

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    Wouldn’t the Hone Sec intervening in a Scottish case be a trifle upsetting for our Scotch* Friends?

    *23 minutes till cocktail hour for me…..
    Would be ultra vires - but in any case, what would she say?

    Could do with one from the SG too actually. Exzscept that that would be explicit interference with the police. The charging bit, though, is not the police.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    edited September 2022
    Biden could end up as one of the more consequential presidents for US science.

    Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/09/12/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation-for-a-sustainable-safe-and-secure-american-bioeconomy/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,294
    But republicans ARE literally traitors

    Take them to Tyburn Tree, acquaint them with its soughing boughs
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,626
    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
    Yes, the days of that bar under Venus Videos that *opened* at 3am are long gone…

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    HYUFD got a job with the BBC?


    Who said that?!?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    Twat
    Needs a bit more work on those Portuguese lessons.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited September 2022
    Leon said:

    But republicans ARE literally traitors

    Take them to Tyburn Tree, acquaint them with its soughing boughs

    Though that would mean no more Bart, TSE or Dynamo or Carnyx or 148 if we hung them as republican traitors. What a loss to PB!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,294

    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
    Yes, the days of that bar under Venus Videos that *opened* at 3am are long gone…

    There are still some mad dive bars with much misbehaviour…
  • On topic - is LAB majority really so obviously overpriced? I put a 2001 kind of result for Labour - 41 to 32 over the Tories - with a plausible Scottish result and the 2023 boundaries - into Electoral Calculus and got LAB on 325 seats. So that kind of result gives Labour a 50% chance of a majority. With tactical voting it's probably higher. If that kind of result is a 50% chance then you have at least a 25% chance of a LAB majority.
    After 12+ years of a Tory government and the worst real incomes record of any postwar government, is it that implausible that Labour could have a 9pp lead at the next election? It doesn't feel that unlikely. A Labour majority wouldn't be my base case, but a 25% probability feels about right to me TBH.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    Leon said:

    But republicans ARE literally traitors

    Take them to Tyburn Tree, acquaint them with its soughing boughs

    And a little less on the products of their viticulture.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Carnyx said:

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    Quite so, though hauling them off might be expedient to prevent a row escalating to a fight (especially given the characteristic of certain opposed groups). But taking them to court ...

    This is not going to go down well with some of the Scottish left-wing voters, and indeed some of the middle ones.
    Who cares? Scottish leftwing voters always hated King Charles anyway
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.

    It really isn’t. Just a few particularly noisy commentators.
    It really is. Do you actually read NYT on regular basis? Or just rely on cherry-picking you see on PB?
    Their first opinion piece on the matter really set the tone.

    In any case, their anti-UK attitude is not in dispute.
    So you read ONE thing in NYT? All the way though?

    As for your 2nd point, their "anti-UK attitude" IS in dispute, in case you haven't noticed!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    Quite so, though hauling them off might be expedient to prevent a row escalating to a fight (especially given the characteristic of certain opposed groups). But taking them to court ...

    This is not going to go down well with some of the Scottish left-wing voters, and indeed some of the middle ones.
    Who cares? Scottish leftwing voters always hated King Charles anyway
    Which one?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
    Depends how old @Ghedebrav is. I went there the other day, having not been for some time. Pretty depressing, actually. It always was and remains now young. Even the members clubs - careful the main Soho House is closed you'll end up in their place in Greek Street - are young. Far younger than you and younger than me also.

    Out on the streets it is all again about youth and vigour which rules you and me out, sadly, although I can see you might have a Death in Venice Dirk Bogarde thing going, now that I think about it.

    So, @Ghedebrav, depends on how old you are!!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    edited September 2022

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Interesting how PB is considerably more anti-royal in its "coverage" than allegedly Anglophobic New York Times.

    It really isn’t. Just a few particularly noisy commentators.
    It really is. Do you actually read NYT on regular basis? Or just rely on cherry-picking you see on PB?
    Their first opinion piece on the matter really set the tone.

    In any case, their anti-UK attitude is not in dispute.
    So you read ONE thing in NYT? All the way though?

    As for your 2nd point, their "anti-UK attitude" IS in dispute, in case you haven't noticed!
    No, that’s not what I said.

    As for the second point, when even the Times says you have an anti-UK problem….
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    Twat
    Needs a bit more work on those Portuguese lessons.
    Apparently perfectly good Portuguese. Means 'tweet'.
  • Carnyx said:

    HYUFD got a job with the BBC?


    Who said that?!?
    Someone called Lacey apparently, one of 83k talking heads that they seem to be able to find at the drop of a hat.

    More plums than the SCon front bench in his gob..

    https://twitter.com/GerryHassan/status/1569247235766104064?s=20&t=qJs-nGjLOw1XfP3uUYvk8Q


  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 651
    edited September 2022

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    I like your analysis, @Gardenwalker.

    And now...we enter an interesting period of struggle during which

    1. Republicans expand the field in which they can operate freely (cf. Cat and Mouse Act). For example, once booing at pompous men wearing tabards is established as safe, try hissing, or mock-guillotining, or street theatre in which men carrying suitcases of money hand it to men dressed as kings. Lots of scope here for imagery connected with money.

    2. At the edges of said expanding field, republicans may even try to get plod to arrest them.

    3. Republicans use the fact that their main target can't openly oppose them, or even debate with them, whereas they can oppose him, and they can also challenge him to a debate. "Always personalise". Read the advice of the great Saul Alinsky.

    4. Plants and even entire pseudo-gangs try to associate republicanism with actions that most people would decry, e.g. vandalising cenotaphs. Reframe this: "Of course we wouldn't do such a thing. We condemn it. Someone's doing it pretending to be us. Now why would that be? Have they set a date for the debate yet?"

    Conclusion: yes, the monarchists' world is contracting in on them. Their certainties are turning out to be built on sand. Things could happen quite fast. My goodness, it feels good to be optimistic about something in this country.
  • 148grss said:

    MISTY said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    What a great post :+1:

    I think the anti-monarchists should be careful what they wish for. The end of the monarchy might also mean the end of the supremacy of parliament, for example, because a democratically elected president would require greater powers than the royals hold. Powers such as veto, for example, or tabling legislation.

    Much blood has been spilled, both domestically and abroad, to establish and preserve the Westminster parliament's supremacy over these islands.
    Well, why not have no head of state, then? If we want parliamentary sovereignty, have it. If the argument is the monarch doesn't really have a veto now (despite the fact they do), then why let them have a constitutional role at all. If they do have that veto power, then there is no mandate for them holding that power other than the supposed specialness of their blood and breeding - an abhorrent concept.
    Make the President electable and grant him/her one actual power - the ability to dissolve Parliament and cause an election. All other powers remain with the Prime Minister as they effectively do at present.

    This would stunt the repellent social hierarchy which the UK has and that is based on little more than proximity to a Royal Family. Presumably all land would revert to Parliament rather than the Crown.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    edited September 2022
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

    'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.

    Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'
  • pingping Posts: 3,724
    B&Q said it would close all its UK stores "as a mark of respect" on the day of the Queen's funeral. It said the decision would also offer its staff "the opportunity to pay their respects".

    Perhaps their staff, usually on NMW, would prefer the opportunity to, err, work to pay their bills?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Dynamo said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Cookie said:

    I would just say this walk from Holyrood to St Giles is a fair uphill hike on cobbles and Charles is doing well to complete it considering everything else he has done today

    I get the impression that for a man of, what, 76? - he is in pretty good shape.
    Bit fat and florid. Wouldn't be amazed by a stroke.
    My pharmacist friend reckons exactly that - thinks he look hypertensive and a sure-fire candidate for getting nowhere near his parents' age of death.
    As Alan Clark almost said about Douglas Hurd,
    the king walks as though he's got a corncob up his a*se.

    Regarding the "sausage fingers" (dactylitis), note that

    1. dactylitis is a symptom of congenital syphilis, and
    2. the king's "toothpaste squeezer" Michael Fawcett suffers from the same issue:

    image
    How long do we have to put up with this ?
    For ten days after the funeral or when Putin is defeated. Whichever occurs first.
    Does Dynamo have any theories about Putin's floppy arm and table gripping?
    An excess of manliness?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Sean_F said:

    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
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    ping said:

    B&Q said it would close all its UK stores "as a mark of respect" on the day of the Queen's funeral. It said the decision would also offer its staff "the opportunity to pay their respects".

    Perhaps their staff, usually on NMW, would prefer the opportunity to, err, work to pay their bills?

    Bank holiday usually means paid time off? But a bit shite for those on zero hours, I agree.
  • Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    Braverman does not have responsibility for policing in Edinburgh or Cardiff.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
    Ha, I'm resolutely downmarket so we'll see.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
    Yes, the days of that bar under Venus Videos that *opened* at 3am are long gone…

    There are still some mad dive bars with much misbehaviour…
    Names
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited September 2022
    Dynamo said:

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    I like your analysis, @Gardenwalker.

    And now...we enter an interesting period of struggle during which

    1. Republicans expand the field in which they can operate freely (cf. Cat and Mouse Act). For example, once booing at pompous men wearing tabards is established as safe, try hissing, or mock-guillotining, or street theatre in which men carrying suitcases of money hand it to men dressed as kings. Lots of scope here for imagery connected with money.

    2. At the edges of said expanding field, republicans may even try to get plod to arrest them.

    3. Republicans use the fact that their main target can't openly oppose them, or even debate with them, whereas they can oppose him, and they can also challenge him to a debate. "Always personalise". Read the advice of the great Saul Alinsky.

    4. Plants and even entire pseudo-gangs try to associate republicanism with actions that most people would decry, e.g. vandalising cenotaphs. Reframe this: "Of course we wouldn't do such a thing. We condemn it. Someone's doing it pretending to be us. Now why would that be? Have they set a date for the debate yet?"

    Conclusion: yes, the monarchists' world is contracting in on them. Their certainties are turning out to be built on sand. Things could happen quite fast. My goodness, it feels good to be optimistic about something in this country.
    An Interesting transposing of Tsarist Russia in 1915 to the UK, with a few touches of the Paris Commune, but it doesn't entirely come off. You're showing a great deal of commitment and diligence, though, and this is certainly an upgrade in quality from the summer.
  • Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    Braverman does not have responsibility for policing in Edinburgh or Cardiff.
    No, but I believe there was an issue in Oxfordshire?

    She can lead by example.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    Braverman does not have responsibility for policing in Edinburgh or Cardiff.
    Oxford is in Wales?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    148grss said:

    MISTY said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    What a great post :+1:

    I think the anti-monarchists should be careful what they wish for. The end of the monarchy might also mean the end of the supremacy of parliament, for example, because a democratically elected president would require greater powers than the royals hold. Powers such as veto, for example, or tabling legislation.

    Much blood has been spilled, both domestically and abroad, to establish and preserve the Westminster parliament's supremacy over these islands.
    Well, why not have no head of state, then? If we want parliamentary sovereignty, have it. If the argument is the monarch doesn't really have a veto now (despite the fact they do), then why let them have a constitutional role at all. If they do have that veto power, then there is no mandate for them holding that power other than the supposed specialness of their blood and breeding - an abhorrent concept.
    You wouldn't create this system if you were starting from scratch.

    But since we're not, it's not clear to me there are sufficient problems with the fundamental basis of the system to justify radically altering it.

    A change of voting system here, adjustment of powers there. It works.
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
    Depends how old @Ghedebrav is. I went there the other day, having not been for some time. Pretty depressing, actually. It always was and remains now young. Even the members clubs - careful the main Soho House is closed you'll end up in their place in Greek Street - are young. Far younger than you and younger than me also.

    Out on the streets it is all again about youth and vigour which rules you and me out, sadly, although I can see you might have a Death in Venice Dirk Bogarde thing going, now that I think about it.

    So, @Ghedebrav, depends on how old you are!!
    I'm youthful 41. Funnily enough, when I was in my 20s Soho felt like a place for older folk.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

    'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.

    Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'

    So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
  • Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

    'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.

    Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'

    There appears to be one sane Scottish Unionist left.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1569309215637872643?s=20&t=qJs-nGjLOw1XfP3uUYvk8Q
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,589
    Lindsey discovers the vestige of a spine.

    GOP senators led by Graham slam Trump Jan. 6 pardon promise
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3636537-gop-senators-led-by-graham-slam-trump-jan-6-pardon-promise/
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dynamo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dynamo said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/republican-britain-why-are-people-getting-arrested

    They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
    There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading

    You are a recruiting sargent for republicans

    Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
    Our UNELECTED new King.
    Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
    The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.

    The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.

    Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?

    Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/republican-britain-why-are-people-getting-arrested

    Getting worried?

    Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.

    Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).

    How many more clips by the weekend?
    Add a few booings...
    Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...

    The royalists are running scared.

    No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.

    Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
    Kings were elected in Poland:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland

    The Pope is a monarch and he is elected.

    The Pope is God's representative on earth appointed by the Cardinals in Catholic doctrine, not elected by the entire population of the Vatican City
    Elected monarchies don't have a great history of success.
    No, they don't. It's very odd - it ought to combine stability with avoiding the risk of dud kings.
    Perhaps it engenders a degree of positioning from candidates for future kingship which is inimical to stability.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

    'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.

    Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'

    So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
    HYUFDOmathics again, like the political equivazlent of bistromathics in Douglas Adams. "Assume the DKs agree with HYUFD."

    Given that Royalty with all the chipolatas and trimmings is the default option, you should be very worried that only 45% of voters in Scotland [NB: not 'Scots' unless one wants to make unwarranted assumptions] are only pro princesses and things. A good 19% don't know and 36% definitely want no princesses. It did surprise me.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Carnyx said:

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    Braverman does not have responsibility for policing in Edinburgh or Cardiff.
    Oxford is in Wales?
    There is not a single Tory MP or Tory councillor in the city of Oxford, it is hardly surprising there are plenty of Republicans there but again she will leave enforcing the law to the local police's discretion
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    edited September 2022
    Nuts…..

    Just went to Parliament Square & held up a blank piece of paper. Officer came & asked for my details. He confirmed that if I wrote “Not My King” on it, he would arrest me under the Public Order Act because someone might be offended.

    https://twitter.com/paulpowlesland/status/1569350005462564865
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 6,851
    edited September 2022
    YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

    'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.

    Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'

    There appears to be one sane Scottish Unionist left.

    https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1569309215637872643?s=20&t=qJs-nGjLOw1XfP3uUYvk8Q
    Jings, crivvens, help ma boab, my bucket's cowped ower!
  • CookieCookie Posts: 11,184
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:
    Hannan is a libertarian Whig in his own words, not a Tory
    True, but by that definition almost no-one since the 19th century has been a Tory. The need for a party to defend the interests of the crown seems as relevant as the need for a party to represent the interests of the CofE.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    59% of Conservative voters and 54% of Leave voters cried after the death of the Queen

    https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/survey-results/daily/2022/09/12/7bf5e/3
  • RH1992RH1992 Posts: 788
    edited September 2022
    ping said:

    B&Q said it would close all its UK stores "as a mark of respect" on the day of the Queen's funeral. It said the decision would also offer its staff "the opportunity to pay their respects".

    Perhaps their staff, usually on NMW, would prefer the opportunity to, err, work to pay their bills?

    If it's a declared bank holiday it should mean that it's paid holiday for the staff. Additionally people who work on BHs get another day in lieu. However you are right that self employed/contractors/day rate employees at other companies will lose a day's wages if they were due to work, but NMW employed people shouldn't lose out.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    Braverman does not have responsibility for policing in Edinburgh or Cardiff.
    Oxford is in Wales?
    There is not a single Tory MP or Tory councillor in the city of Oxford, it is hardly surprising there are plenty of Republicans there but again she will leave enforcing the law to the local police's discretion
    Oxford is policed by THames Valley Police. Lots and lots of Tories in Oxfordshire and elswehere in the force area.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    edited September 2022
    Ghedebrav said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
    Depends how old @Ghedebrav is. I went there the other day, having not been for some time. Pretty depressing, actually. It always was and remains now young. Even the members clubs - careful the main Soho House is closed you'll end up in their place in Greek Street - are young. Far younger than you and younger than me also.

    Out on the streets it is all again about youth and vigour which rules you and me out, sadly, although I can see you might have a Death in Venice Dirk Bogarde thing going, now that I think about it.

    So, @Ghedebrav, depends on how old you are!!
    I'm youthful 41. Funnily enough, when I was in my 20s Soho felt like a place for older folk.
    41 is no age! Especially compared with @Leon and, er, me.

    I would have no idea where to go - I went as I said a couple of weeks ago to Soho House to meet some friends but whereas XX years ago (ahem) it was close to a home from home (the Roxy, Marquee, 100 Club, then the Wag, le Beat Route, etc, etc) now it is, as the past does tend to be, a different country.

    Whatever you do don't take the advice of some old git like Leon.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,911
    Ghedebrav said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    @Leon you might be interested to know that you've persuaded me to give Soho another try following the convo on here last week; am in London tomorrow and overnight.

    Probably start at De Hems and see where it goes from there.


    A good night in soho has changed. You can’t go from pub to pub and expect to have as good a time as you did (but was it ever that good?)

    These days it needs to involve good food and members clubs and weird bars and half pints at the French and the rest. And then it is superb

    It has gone upmarket. It is is the centre of Europe’s greatest city. Inevitable
    Yes, the days of that bar under Venus Videos that *opened* at 3am are long gone…

    There are still some mad dive bars with much misbehaviour…
    Names
    Is Trisha's still going? Haven't been since before the pandemic...
  • YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died

    I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    edited September 2022
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

    'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.

    Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'

    So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
    HYUFDOmathics again, like the political equivazlent of bistromathics in Douglas Adams. "Assume the DKs agree with HYUFD."

    Given that Royalty with all the chipolatas and trimmings is the default option, you should be very worried that only 45% of voters in Scotland [NB: not 'Scots' unless one wants to make unwarranted assumptions] are only pro princesses and things. A good 19% don't know and 36% definitely want no princesses. It did surprise me.
    36% is 9% less than voted Yes in 2014 or SNP in 2019, no wonder Sturgeon wants to keep the monarchy
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:
    Hannan is a libertarian Whig in his own words, not a Tory
    True, but by that definition almost no-one since the 19th century has been a Tory. The need for a party to defend the interests of the crown seems as relevant as the need for a party to represent the interests of the CofE.
    Well, on those criteria HYUFD is the last Tory on Earth, judging from PB.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901

    YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died

    I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
    Breaking royal protocol in a dream, is still breaking royal protocol. Thames police will be contacting you soon. A hug indeed!
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Cookie said:

    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dynamo said:

    HYUFD said:

    Dynamo said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/republican-britain-why-are-people-getting-arrested

    They were attempting to disrupt the accession process of the new King. 150 years ago they would have been hung for doing so, 300 years ago they would have been beheaded for doing so. It was a mild response from the police under the Public Order Act given the disruption they were causing
    There is no excuse and you even talk about hanging and beheading

    You are a recruiting sargent for republicans

    Republicans are Republicans, they will not change their mind, if they try and aggressively disrupt the accession process for our new King it is only right they are arrested and charged for doing so
    Our UNELECTED new King.
    Thr monarchist Tories trounced the republican Corbyn in 2019, though in any case monarchs are unelected ceremonial Heads of State, that is the whole point
    The growth of republican feeling now is probably more like the growth of support for Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn in the run-up to the election in 2017.

    The only way we will find out whether that statement is true or not is if someone does a poll. Which you don't want, for some reason.

    Or...wait...there's another way...we could reach the same conclusion if peaceful demonstrations grow against this monarchist circus which is mounting its silly events all over the country right now. Who knows, there may well even be a big crescendoing chorus of booing. Has Edinburgh shown the way forward? Rather than saying "f***" on their banners - inadvisable - some might even hold up pictures of suitcases with "€1m" written on them and a little crown above. What do you reckon? Chuck them all in the cells or allow free speech?

    Unless the police ( and the BBC ) get a little more of a grip, they will hand the initiative to republicans. I want to see a democratic-minded era of Charles III, which in fact he's quite capable of and will suppott, not north korean-style nonsense.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/12/republican-britain-why-are-people-getting-arrested

    Getting worried?

    Monarchists don't like it up 'em, and right now they have a LOT of weak points.

    Already the video clips are mounting up, for example. The king's extreme sh*ttiness to his underlings at that desk - which is obviously habitual - and now his brother (whose accuser Virginia Giuffre was paid £12m to drop her case) is seen touching his own daughter in a very questionable fashion (it might only be 60:40, but very few of us would want this guy teaching or spending time alone with our children after we've watched that clip).

    How many more clips by the weekend?
    Add a few booings...
    Add one or two posters that hit the nail right on the head...

    The royalists are running scared.

    No they aren't, monarchy by definition is unelected, the only way republicans can change that is to elect a republican PM. They had that chance in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn but blew it.

    Now both Starmer and Truss as well as Davey have proclaimed their loyalty to King Charles
    Kings were elected in Poland:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_elections_in_Poland

    The Pope is a monarch and he is elected.

    The Pope is God's representative on earth appointed by the Cardinals in Catholic doctrine, not elected by the entire population of the Vatican City
    Elected monarchies don't have a great history of success.
    No, they don't. It's very odd - it ought to combine stability with avoiding the risk of dud kings.
    Perhaps it engenders a degree of positioning from candidates for future kingship which is inimical to stability.
    They went two ways. Either the monarchy became hereditary in practice (there might be an argument about which son should get the crown, but not which family should wear it) or they became cyphers, like Poland/Lithuania.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,157
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

    'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.

    Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'

    So 64% of Scots don't want to become a Republic now the Queen has died, higher even than the 55% who voted No to independence in 2014
    HYUFDOmathics again, like the political equivazlent of bistromathics in Douglas Adams. "Assume the DKs agree with HYUFD."

    Given that Royalty with all the chipolatas and trimmings is the default option, you should be very worried that only 45% of voters in Scotland [NB: not 'Scots' unless one wants to make unwarranted assumptions] are only pro princesses and things. A good 19% don't know and 36% definitely want no princesses. It did surprise me.
    36% is 9% less than voted Yes in 2014 or SNP in 2019, no wonder Sturgeon wants to keep the monarchy
    You're comparing figures with and without DKs omitted - meaningless twaddle.

    Irrespective of that, however, the SNP isn't a republican party anyway.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,719
    Cookie said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:
    Hannan is a libertarian Whig in his own words, not a Tory
    True, but by that definition almost no-one since the 19th century has been a Tory. The need for a party to defend the interests of the crown seems as relevant as the need for a party to represent the interests of the CofE.
    Very relevant, now as ever
  • MISTYMISTY Posts: 1,594
    edited September 2022

    148grss said:

    MISTY said:

    148grss said:

    As a republican, one of the things that this moment really does highlight more than anything is the absurdity of monarchy.

    A 96 year old woman died, in comfort, surrounded by her family. This is not really a tragedy, but the best case scenario for any of us. Yet the enforced sadness and demand for shows of mourning are around us and forced. Those who typically complain about wokism being forced down their throats (despite that typically just being capitalists reacting to market forces as the consuming public become more diverse) seem to have less of an issue with private billboards and advertising and such being commandeered for the purpose of commemoration.

    The absurdities also pile up: that this woman and her family are somehow more important than your family or mine by dint of birth and right of god and conquest. That now, at a time of immense pressure on the average person with the cost of living, we will see lavish state funerals and coronations for a family who already have immense private wealth. The absurdity of monarchy as a concept is multiplied by the absurdity of its existence with current material reality.

    It is also highly absurd to compare modern acts of protest against the monarch, with signs saying "not my king", to literal treason.

    That posters here seem to be unable to disentangle the funeral acts from the proclamations also are absurd; we (republicans) should know that now is not the right time for politics and such, but the very political acts of proclaiming the new King, installing a new Prince of Wales, of reinvesting and accepting the power the monarch has is happening all very quickly - almost as if it is understood that this time of mourning is good cover to ignore the question of the role of the monarch in the modern age. This will likely work this time, but after Charles III passes I don't think the same level of adoration will exist, and the conversation about why we still have a monarch at all will not be held back by deference to the memory of a well loved king.

    The clip on Sky News of people marching after the seemingly unjust killing of an unarmed 24 year old man being mistaken for an impromptu march for the Queen also highlights this - for a lot of people there are still highly political concerns that matter so much more; the cost of living crisis is not "insignificant" as one BBC presenter suggested, and loss of earnings from cancelled events like football (but noticeably not rugby or cricket) have material as well as symbolic implications.

    I'm in my early 30s, and I think republicanism in my lifetime is a 50/50 chance. But the very clear paradox monarchy seems to have been exposed in this moment, and that stuff is seeping through given how popular Lizzie was seems to suggest that when we're back here in 5, 10, 15 years, when Charles pops it, that the monarchy will be a more significant question in our constitutional politics.

    What a great post :+1:

    I think the anti-monarchists should be careful what they wish for. The end of the monarchy might also mean the end of the supremacy of parliament, for example, because a democratically elected president would require greater powers than the royals hold. Powers such as veto, for example, or tabling legislation.

    Much blood has been spilled, both domestically and abroad, to establish and preserve the Westminster parliament's supremacy over these islands.
    Well, why not have no head of state, then? If we want parliamentary sovereignty, have it. If the argument is the monarch doesn't really have a veto now (despite the fact they do), then why let them have a constitutional role at all. If they do have that veto power, then there is no mandate for them holding that power other than the supposed specialness of their blood and breeding - an abhorrent concept.
    Make the President electable and grant him/her one actual power - the ability to dissolve Parliament and cause an election. All other powers remain with the Prime Minister as they effectively do at present.

    This would stunt the repellent social hierarchy which the UK has and that is based on little more than proximity to a Royal Family. Presumably all land would revert to Parliament rather than the Crown.
    Trouble is, who is going to turn up to that 'vote for a lame duck' election?

    20% turnout?

    The Prez has to have powers or it is not really worth it?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Leon said:

    But republicans ARE literally traitors

    Take them to Tyburn Tree, acquaint them with its soughing boughs

    Is the tree still there?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,871
    Carnyx said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/12/scottish-crowds-turn-out-for-the-queen-but-support-for-the-monarchy-less-clear

    'The crowd in Edinburgh’s Old Town as her hearse passed along the Royal Mile on Sunday was the densest the city has seen. That display of compassion, curiosity and, for some, fealty could suggest the support for monarchism in Scotland is deeper than many suspected. [...] That may be misplaced. The question facing unionists and the new monarch, King Charles III, is whether the deep affection for his mother translates into support for him and for the institution.

    Recent polling suggests it may not. In 2021, the thinktank British Futures found that only 45% of Scottish voters wanted to keep the monarch, versus 60% at UK level, while 36% of Scots said the end of the Queen’s reign would be the right moment to establish a republic – a figure nearly replicated by a Panelbase poll.'

    One thing to point out is that, although Scots may be generally more radical than people of other nations, we tend to be more respectful of others views. Although obviously, we also have our loud, professionally outraged minority.
  • Jonathan said:

    YouGov with 52 to 36 in favour of no football/sports canx 86 to 6 in favour of BH on funeral day and 44% have blubbed since HMQ died

    I had my first dream about the Queen a couple of nights ago. I gave her a hug and was crying as I said goodbye. Very strange.
    Breaking royal protocol in a dream, is still breaking royal protocol. Thames police will be contacting you soon. A hug indeed!
    Who do I think I am, Michelle Obama?
  • Carnyx said:

    Someone needs to tell the various constabularies that arresting republican protesters is “not a good look”.

    Charging them is even worse.

    There’s nothing the monarchy can do, so this is where a statement from Braverman would be useful.

    I’m not holding my breath.
    Braverman does not have responsibility for policing in Edinburgh or Cardiff.
    Oxford is in Wales?
    The arrests most recently in the news were in Edinburgh - which is leading to prosecution - not something so far announced in the Oxford case. A recent example of this daft policing was in Wales where the (I’d have thought self evident) banner that “Lesbians Don’t Like Penises” was deemed likely to cause offence leading to lesbians being evicted from a Gay Pride March. But it’s all Braverman’s fault…

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Nigelb said:

    Lindsey discovers the vestige of a spine.

    GOP senators led by Graham slam Trump Jan. 6 pardon promise
    https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3636537-gop-senators-led-by-graham-slam-trump-jan-6-pardon-promise/

    They discover it every 6 months or so for one thing. Then they bend over again.
This discussion has been closed.