Howdy, Stranger!

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

SKS reaches new betting high as PM after general election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 15 in General
imageSKS reaches new betting high as PM after general election – politicalbetting.com

I like this betting market because it seeks to look at the possibilities that there could be after the next election where it is beginning to look that neither of the main parties are in with a real chance of a majority.

Read the full story here

«13456712

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    FPT

    rcs1000 said:

    "India are - of course - playing a dangerous game. If (when) Russia were to become a client state of China, they might soon find their flow of weapons drying up."


    So? Ukraine has shown they have been buying shitty second-rate crap from Russia for decades.

    American/NATO country hardware is what you need to be buying. Even their cast-offs are way better than what Russia is selling. If indeed Russia can deliver. They will be rebuilding their own armies - delivery dates are going to be years, not months. And even that depends on sourcing western chips.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    SKS will be PM in Jan 25 as I've been saying.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    edited September 13
    First post that’s not from previous thread

    Actually second after gazumping.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    edited September 13
    FPT
    moonshine said:

    Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.

    But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?

    The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    moonshine said:

    Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.

    But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?

    The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
    Yes, this is spot on. Always had a reputation for prissiness.
    He’s lost his beloved mother and I have sympathy for him, but his essential character is shining through.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    moonshine said:

    Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.

    But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?

    The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
    George VI had a famous temper.

    Not sure I've ever heard this from William. Harry, yes.
  • Final US Primaries - Poll closing times in New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Delaware
    = 8pm EDT = 1am Wed UK
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    I hereby predict the crowds in London for the next few days will be unprecedented
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536
    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829

    First post that’s not from previous thread

    Actually second after gazumping.

    Fizzy has had a cracking start. A work of genius to reject King Charles's offer to piggyback her through the home nations hand pressing sessions Best not to be associated with the old misery. Good girl!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    Who do you think the BBC are absolutely terrified of upsetting? The Conservative Party.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    On current polls Starmer will win most seats and almost certainly be PM even without a majority
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730

    FPT

    rcs1000 said:

    "India are - of course - playing a dangerous game. If (when) Russia were to become a client state of China, they might soon find their flow of weapons drying up."

    So? Ukraine has shown they have been buying shitty second-rate crap from Russia for decades.

    American/NATO country hardware is what you need to be buying. Even their cast-offs are way better than what Russia is selling. If indeed Russia can deliver. They will be rebuilding their own armies - delivery dates are going to be years, not months. And even that depends on sourcing western chips.

    And, perhaps more to the point, they’re continuing to develop a domestic arms industry. As with Turkey.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Other way round works too.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536
    Carnyx said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    Who do you think the BBC are absolutely terrified of upsetting? The Conservative Party.
    Nah, it's the Beeb. Nothing to do with the Conservative Party.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    edited September 13
    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,994
    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
  • Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would
    get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Did you type the first couple of sentences with your face?
  • @wooliedyed

    Pat Roach also played the big guy with the turban in Temple of Doom.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378

    @wooliedyed

    Pat Roach also played the big guy with the turban in Temple of Doom.

    Yes he did!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536
    Leon said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
    Yes, that's true. But, I mean, they are called the British Broadcasting Corporation.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489
    Carnyx said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Other way round works too.
    I'd take that to be honest.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would
    get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Did you type the first couple of sentences with your face?
    I have some difficulties and have to type with an S Pen. It means i often make errors
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    I find it quite reassuring how many of these BBC lefties become Conservative Party candidates and at all levels of politics.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,797

    I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.

    Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.

    Why don't you call it as you see it instead of prevaricating?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,636

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 42,730
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    edited September 13
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    No it isn't, in the past under George IVth for example, Charles 1st and James IInd obviously, Edward VIIIth, Victoria when she became a recluse and even after Diana's death the monarchy was much less unpopular than it is now. It is still there a cornerstone of our nation.

    BBC1 is still the most watched TV channel, even with freeview
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 6,599

    I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.

    Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.

    Why don't you call it as you see it instead of prevaricating?
    Do you think I should? I was worried about being too direct.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,334

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    I find it quite reassuring how many of these BBC lefties become Conservative Party candidates and at all levels of politics.
    It's a bit like @Leons "Lefty Friends", you have to bear in mind that everything politically is relative. From the far right, everything looks Lefty.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    edited September 13

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
    If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QS

    Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 9,347
    Nigelb said:
    Bill Baileys latest tour promo?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    Nigelb said:
    Home made vodka is a terrible thing.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
    If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QS

    Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
    To get to that point Truss needs to get rather closer than the 7% Labour lead on the latest poll, currently she is heading for about the same number of MPs Brown got in 2010
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,636
    Leon said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
    It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 46,536
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    Nothing is certain and nothing is inevitable.

    There is always everything to play for.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    moonshine said:

    Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.

    But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?

    The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
    George VI had a famous temper.

    Not sure I've ever heard this from William. Harry, yes.
    "A famous temper" FFS. Something you can only exercise on people down the pecking order from you whose choice is take it or be sacked. It's like people used to say of that fuckwitted old racist HMQ was married to that he "didn't suffer fools gladly," when his chances of meeting anyone thicker than him in a non instituional setting were zero.

    give it to me hard and dry, your maj. I love it.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    HYUFD said:

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
    If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QS

    Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
    To get to that point Truss needs to get rather closer than the 7% Labour lead on the latest poll, currently she is heading for about the same number of MPs Brown got in 2010
    Yes, but my point is look at the variation in the betting markets - this one versus 50/50 largest party. I am not making a prediction.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
    It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.
    The BBC is instinctively Woke-ish centre Left, due to the kind of people it employs, young liberal London types. I’m not sure how you avoid that

    This is partly balanced by the usual Tory governments installing rightwing administrators, from time to time

    It is deeply imperfect and will probably die unless it evolves fast. I am unsure that whatever replaces it will be any better
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    Leon said:

    I hereby predict the crowds in London for the next few days will be unprecedented

    The contrast with the weeks during the worst of lockdown when London (as everywhere) was deserted will be incredible.

    Like nature, the green shoots of human society cannot remain dormant in the earth for long.

    I seem to recall you were particularly upset by how empty and dead the capital had become during the worst of it.

  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    Nothing is certain and nothing is inevitable.

    There is always everything to play for.
    Of course

    But the continuation of the UK monarchy, for the next - say - 20 years - is as good as a sure bet as you get in world politics. It is extremely hard to envisage a scenario where it falls. Nuclear war? But then we are all dead
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,330
    Eabhal said:

    FPT: The 5 hour wait in Edinburgh was worth it. Some of my friends only waited 45 minutes by getting up really early.

    It was just so quiet inside the Kirk. But outside, that vibe when you're walking to church on Christmas eve, or on the way to the bonfire on 5th November, or to the high street at Hogmanay. Doing it in the dark really added to it for me.

    My attitude to the monarchy is "not worth the energy getting rid of it". But there is no doubt that Elizabeth II was history, and I'll be talking about last night on PB in about 50 years time ;)

    On the long wait in the dark - I wonder if it really does stir something in our minds? Just thinking of things like Hogmanay, Christmas, Guy Fawkes. Oidhche Challain in the Western Isles, Up Helly Aa on Shetland, and the Burning of the Clavie in Moray.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
    It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.
    The BBC is instinctively Woke-ish centre Left, due to the kind of people it employs, young liberal London types. I’m not sure how you avoid that

    This is partly balanced by the usual Tory governments installing rightwing administrators, from time to time

    It is deeply imperfect and will probably die unless it evolves fast. I am unsure that whatever replaces it will be any better
    I doubt the BBC will ever die, the brandname alone is still probably the most respected in global TV and radio and it still gets the license fee
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486

    Julia Davis
    @JuliaDavisNews
    ·
    18m
    Russia has secretly funneled at least $300 million to foreign political parties and candidates in more than two dozen countries since 2014 in an attempt to shape political events beyond its borders, according to a new U.S. intelligence review.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569786833453850624

    ===

    $300m less for spending on Vlad's utterly shite military. Oh dear, how sad, never mind...

  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    I hereby predict the crowds in London for the next few days will be unprecedented

    The contrast with the weeks during the worst of lockdown when London (as everywhere) was deserted will be incredible.

    Like nature, the green shoots of human society cannot remain dormant in the earth for long.

    I seem to recall you were particularly upset by how empty and dead the capital had become during the worst of it.

    I was. And it was horrible

    I was thinking almost this exact same thought this evening as I flaneured about Seville

    I remember people predicting “the death of cities”

    Lol, how wrong. People will always come together in bigger and bigger numbers for food, sex, chat, worship, society, politics, art, sports. This is, literally, civilisation. Humanity is not returning to village life

    Seville buzzes tonight
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,847
    Carnyx said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    Who do you think the BBC are absolutely terrified of upsetting? The Conservative Party.
    I think the BBC is simply very Establishment, such that it can be defined. Status quo, other than a few trendy positions to cleave to.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    An intellectual.

    I've owned horses more intelligent than he is. Actually I have never owned one that wasn't.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    I doubt the issue is going to get much salience in this country, even with the fuckpig, because post-Brexit I think many people are fed up with so much politics and won't be in a rush to rock the boat.

    Australia and other "realms" though are much less likely to keep the monarchy under Charles than they were under Elizabeth.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    An intellectual.

    I've owned horses more intelligent than he is. Actually I have never owned one that wasn't.
    He is well read and speaks well and has more class in his little finger than you have in your whole body!
  • GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
    King Emeritus?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    Nothing is certain and nothing is inevitable.

    There is always everything to play for.
    Of course

    But the continuation of the UK monarchy, for the next - say - 20 years - is as good as a sure bet as you get in world politics. It is extremely hard to envisage a scenario where it falls. Nuclear war? But then we are all dead
    Franz of Bavaria and his brother Max row up Loch Shiel and raise the jacobite standard and this time there is no Dudley Bradstreet feeding duff info when they reach Derby.......
    A new epoch begins
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,141
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    An intellectual.

    I've owned horses more intelligent than he is. Actually I have never owned one that wasn't.
    Are you suggesting his reign will be a bit of a mare?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,141

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
    King Emeritus?
    Duke of Windsor...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,122

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Well... How is the bet settled?

    Because I don't believe that the Conservative Party is likely to get its Kings Speech through Parliament, unless it was overwhelmingly the latest party: Labor, libdems, snp, PC, Green and most NI MPs will vote against.

    If Ms Truss does not believe she has the confidence of the House, then she cannot tell the King that she does. And no one wants a situation where the Kings Speech is voted down.

    In summary: I disagree.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 2,244
    I refer honourable members to threads written on this site in c. 2013 and would like them to remind me how Ed Milliband got on as PM.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
    King Emeritus?
    He's not going to retire. Do you think he has learnt nothing from his mother?

    Only Eddy 7 "retired" and none of them want to be associated with that.

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,334
    edited September 13


    Julia Davis
    @JuliaDavisNews
    ·
    18m
    Russia has secretly funneled at least $300 million to foreign political parties and candidates in more than two dozen countries since 2014 in an attempt to shape political events beyond its borders, according to a new U.S. intelligence review.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569786833453850624

    ===

    $300m less for spending on Vlad's utterly shite military. Oh dear, how sad, never mind...

    That $300 million was far more effective!

    If the Russian archives are opened after Putins downfall they will be of a great deal of interest. Several well known figures will be very embarrassed.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    An intellectual.

    I've owned horses more intelligent than he is. Actually I have never owned one that wasn't.
    He is well read and speaks well and has more class in his little finger than you have in your whole body!
    Absolutely dry, your Majesty, and hard as you like. Amen.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
    Juan Carlos is now King Emeritus
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,141

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
    If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QS

    Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
    I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.

    And nor will Truss.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
    King Emeritus?
    He's not going to retire. Do you think he has learnt nothing from his mother?

    Only Eddy 7 "retired" and none of them want to be associated with that.

    VIII not VII
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,447
    edited September 13
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
    It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.
    The BBC is instinctively Woke-ish centre Left, due to the kind of people it employs, young liberal London types. I’m not sure how you avoid that

    This is partly balanced by the usual Tory governments installing rightwing administrators, from time to time

    It is deeply imperfect and will probably die unless it evolves fast. I am unsure that whatever replaces it will be any better
    The BBC has regional news and programming though.
    Something not always obvious from London.
    A lot of the talent comes up through that route.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
    King Emeritus?
    Duke of Windsor...
    Pack him off to be Governor General of the Bahamas
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    edited September 13

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    I doubt the issue is going to get much salience in this country, even with the fuckpig, because post-Brexit I think many people are fed up with so much politics and won't be in a rush to rock the boat.

    Australia and other "realms" though are much less likely to keep the monarchy under Charles than they were under Elizabeth.
    Australia will certainly have a referendum again in 5 years or so if Labor is re elected but I wouldn't say the result is certain even if it would likely be closer than 1999.

    Canada won't change as both PM Trudeau and the Conservative Opposition back the monarchy. New Zealand likely won't either. However let us not forget most Commonwealth nations have already become republics or got their own monarchs in Elizabeth's reign

    http://www.republic.org.nz/latestblog/2021/11/17/opinion-poll-44-republic-50-monarchy-after-the-queen
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,847
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    He'd have to be reallllly bad to noticably impact support levels inside a year.

    I expect probably a bit of a dip as some Commonwealth Realms become republics and that causes a few people to go, ''eh, I suppose it is time for it", but he wasn't as unpopular as some thought before he got a boost from being king, and the polling hasn't massively changed I believe.

    You clearly feel very very strongly about him personally, and I just don't think most will one way or another, and so the prevailing position is sustained.

    The monarchy get survive on general apathy and some fervent support. It's mass opposition it could not handle, and we're a long long way from that.
  • ydoethur said:

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
    If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QS

    Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
    I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.

    And nor will Truss.
    You never know, Charles could self-identify as a Queen if her popularity dips.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521
    Foxy said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    I find it quite reassuring how many of these BBC lefties become Conservative Party candidates and at all levels of politics.
    It's a bit like @Leons "Lefty Friends", you have to bear in mind that everything politically is relative. From the far right, everything looks Lefty.
    That's absolutely right. There are chaps at my golf club who view the SNP as commies. I've heard the muttering.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,447
    "The King" is still quite jarring when it is used.
    Not a political comment at all, but merely a personal reaction.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,325
    edited September 13

    I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.

    Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.

    I mean SKS did try and get an anti-Semitic Trotskyite elected as well as trying to cancel the biggest political mandate in British history.

    Remember too that the PLP is far more left-wing than SKS is trying to present himself as so if he attempts to govern in the center there will be havoc in the Labour Party though my guess is that given he stuck it out on Jezza's shadow cabinet right to end he will turn out to be a pretty radical left-winger himself once elected.

    Don't get me wrong he will be PM in 2025 but I don't think he will be saviour of the nation somehow...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829
    IshmaelZ said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    moonshine said:

    Tell you who had a bit of a temper. George VI. Didn’t stop him being a national hero. Charles III getting annoyed over ink pots and leaking fountain pens in this week of all weeks is not a big deal. Cut the geezer some slack, none of us would swap places with him.

    But it's not just this week is it? It's part of a pattern of behviour from him that we've heard about for years, maybe even decades?

    The only difference is that this week there's so much attention on him that people are starting to actually see it rather than it just being rumour in newspapers...
    George VI had a famous temper.

    Not sure I've ever heard this from William. Harry, yes.
    "A famous temper" FFS. Something you can only exercise on people down the pecking order from you whose choice is take it or be sacked. It's like people used to say of that fuckwitted old racist HMQ was married to that he "didn't suffer fools gladly," when his chances of meeting anyone thicker than him in a non instituional setting were zero.

    give it to me hard and dry, your maj. I love it.
    I do recall the fun I used to have at the start of my career when a Director could hairdryer me for no reason other than because he could.

    Ah, those were the days. I remember one motivational team talk where the the MD told us " If it were (sic) up to me I wouldn't even pay you bastards in washers". It looks like Charles went to the same management finishing school.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,141

    ydoethur said:

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
    If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QS

    Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
    I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.

    And nor will Truss.
    You never know, Charles could self-identify as a Queen if her popularity dips.
    Self identify as a woman, to become the Queen.

    Self identifying as a queen wouldn't stop him from being the King...
  • dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
    It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.
    The BBC is instinctively Woke-ish centre Left, due to the kind of people it employs, young liberal London types. I’m not sure how you avoid that

    This is partly balanced by the usual Tory governments installing rightwing administrators, from time to time

    It is deeply imperfect and will probably die unless it evolves fast. I am unsure that whatever replaces it will be any better
    The BBC has regional news and programming though.
    Something not always obvious from London.
    A lot of the talent comes up through that route.
    Ah yes from memory that's when you get a screen of text saying that HD isn't available in your region and showing a ticking down clock until something comes back on again.

    Sometimes used to see that after the football. Good talent, really sound use of the licence fee that ticking clock.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    edited September 13
    biggles said:

    I refer honourable members to threads written on this site in c. 2013 and would like them to remind me how Ed Milliband got on as PM.

    Ed Miliband was only facing a Tory government in office for 5 years not 14 years and Cameron also had the UKIP vote to squeeze. Cameron also led as best PM in most polls as Starmer does now
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,447


    Julia Davis
    @JuliaDavisNews
    ·
    18m
    Russia has secretly funneled at least $300 million to foreign political parties and candidates in more than two dozen countries since 2014 in an attempt to shape political events beyond its borders, according to a new U.S. intelligence review.

    https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569786833453850624

    ===

    $300m less for spending on Vlad's utterly shite military. Oh dear, how sad, never mind...

    We've been at War since 2014.
    A heck of a lot of folk have been played. For money, for flattery, or out of stupidity.
    Again. This is not a political comment. Both wings and the centre have folk who've been corrupted.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521

    Leon said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
    It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.
    Is there any public broadcaster in the world that is better than the BBC?
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,085
    Why do we have a road called Constitution Hill? We don't have a Constitution and it's barely a hilll.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    GIN1138 said:

    I cannot believe that the bunch of damaged sleazebags formerly known as The Conservative Party are even remotely electable.

    Roll on PM Starmer. You might be dull and uninspiring, but at least you are not a self-promoting glory hound determined to trash anything that stands in your way to the top.

    I mean SKS did try and get an anti-Semitic Trotskyite elected as well as trying to cancel the biggest political mandate in British history.

    Remember too that the PLP is far more left-wing than SKS is trying to present himself as so if he attempts to govern in the center there will be havoc in the Labour Party though my guess is that given he stuck it out on Jezza's shadow cabinet right to end he will turn out to be a pretty radical left-winger himself once elected.

    Don't get me wrong he will be PM in 2025 but I don't think he will be saviour of the nation somehow...
    Hence the voters will likely put him in as PM but not give him a majority, as with Cameron in 2010 they trust him with No 10 but don't trust his party yet with a majority
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,447

    ydoethur said:

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
    If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QS

    Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
    I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.

    And nor will Truss.
    You never know, Charles could self-identify as a Queen if her popularity dips.
    Giving the job of Queen to a man is peak wokery.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    rcs1000 said:

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Well... How is the bet settled?

    Because I don't believe that the Conservative Party is likely to get its Kings Speech through Parliament, unless it was overwhelmingly the latest party: Labor, libdems, snp, PC, Green and most NI MPs will vote against.

    If Ms Truss does not believe she has the confidence of the House, then she cannot tell the King that she does. And no one wants a situation where the Kings Speech is voted down.

    In summary: I disagree.
    Its KS not QS i forgot!
    Feb 74 is the precedent, neither party had a formal deal so the very marginally larger party formed a short term minority.
    Id expect a Truss largest party would be put in to bat by the rest to be brought down at leisure
  • Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT: The 5 hour wait in Edinburgh was worth it. Some of my friends only waited 45 minutes by getting up really early.

    It was just so quiet inside the Kirk. But outside, that vibe when you're walking to church on Christmas eve, or on the way to the bonfire on 5th November, or to the high street at Hogmanay. Doing it in the dark really added to it for me.

    My attitude to the monarchy is "not worth the energy getting rid of it". But there is no doubt that Elizabeth II was history, and I'll be talking about last night on PB in about 50 years time ;)

    On the long wait in the dark - I wonder if it really does stir something in our minds? Just thinking of things like Hogmanay, Christmas, Guy Fawkes. Oidhche Challain in the Western Isles, Up Helly Aa on Shetland, and the Burning of the Clavie in Moray.
    More Scoddish than a sheep's heid simmering in Scotch broth on a Uist Rayburn.
    Did you not fancy taking your pipes to the queue last night to add to the atmosphere?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,334
    dixiedean said:

    "The King" is still quite jarring when it is used.
    Not a political comment at all, but merely a personal reaction.

    It's a bit like writing the old year when writing dates in January, by February it is normal.

    It will sound a bit discordant until the new year, then just be part of the furniture.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
    Juan Carlos is now King Emeritus
    Benedict is also Pope Emeritus
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 23,032
    @Phil asked earlier today

    "How is the Cass review relevant to a court case on the validity of the charitable status of the LGB alliance?"

    On the assumption that this was a genuine question, I will attempt to answer.

    The court case has to determine two matters:-

    1. Does the charity Mermaids have the legal standing to bring a claim at all? This is the most important question because if it does not - and the bar is very high indeed - none of the rest of its claims matter.

    2. Can it establish that LGB Alliance are in breach of their charitable objects and charity law?

    Both issues are being reviewed at the same time.

    As part of this LGB Alliance are stating that they are concerned about young lesbians and whether they are being wrongly categorised as trans and made subject to treatment. Mermaids are disputing this. The Cass Interim Report is relevant to this issue because it deals with the question of how children with gender issues are being treated, whether some of those concerns may in fact relate to their sexuality rather than any gender issues and the effect of Mermaids' advocacy on how clinics like the Tavistock have operated. And by implication on young lesbians.

    Hence the questioning about this topic. If the judge thought this irrelevant, he would have stopped the questioning. What is interesting is that in their answers Mermaids say that they have not really reviewed the Cass Report because they are not experts on health. This is a bit odd because it appears to conflict with other public statements they have made about the health treatment to be given to children. It is, however, early stages in the case.

    The case is interesting for a large number of reasons, not all of them related to the trans issue.

    Hope that helps.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 34,334
    dixiedean said:

    ydoethur said:

    Now, we need to be a bit careful here.....
    Mike may well think its SKS who gets the csll but it us not that simple. SKS has ruled out formal deals with anyone. It may well be that the LDs snd SNP will let him get a QS through but in the absence of a formal deal, the largest party will get first dibs on a minority govt, and that, as we saw last thread, is currently 50/50 in betting.
    Con largest party 281 to 280 say would get first crack and the terms say that counts as Truss for this bet.

    Theres scope here to make some money.......

    Not sure if that's right? Don't the Qu...er, King's advisers quietly judge who has the best chance of a majority based on the stated intentions and Parliamentary arithmetic, and invite them first? Do they automatically invite the largest party?
    If there are no formal deals, yes. The largest party has the right to try and pass a QS

    Edit - it gets voted down and then SKS tries, but the terms here would be Truss wins
    I can 100% guarantee Starmer will never pass a Queen's Speech. Or even try to.

    And nor will Truss.
    You never know, Charles could self-identify as a Queen if her popularity dips.
    Giving the job of Queen to a man is peak wokery.
    A triumph of the patriarchy...
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,122
    GIN1138 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    tlg86 said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    It makes sense. If the monarchy goes, why not the BBC?
    Neither are
    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=tu8jOD5uWxQhSbzEDes5_g
    Monarchy's going downhill over time, as discussed here. And the BBC is becoming a relic, as PB rightwingers keep insisting, in the modern media world. Nobody will watch it in a decade or two. Nobody may be able to.
    You kept telling us in 2014 that the Young are Yes, so the Union was doomed. How is that working out? Have the Yes voting young overwhelmed the wrinkly unionists? Or are the polls in total and remarkable stasis, as the young grow up and become more small c conservative - as they do everywhere in the world - and see the value of the Union?

    Same goes for the UK monarchy. Except that in this case the monarchy has 60% support and 20% opposition. It really is not going anywhere. It is quite possible it is more popular now than it has ever been
    It is now. the problem is, the baton has been passed to a pompous self regarding fuckpig.

    Revisit this issue in a year's time.
    Charles will never be as popular as his mother but he will be an intellectual, better than expected King who will in my view probably reign for about 10 years before retiring to Highgrove with Camilla and handing over to William and Kate
    If he did retire what would his title be? King Father?
    Surely:

    The King Father
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    David Steel on BBC news.

    God I feel old.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,178
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    I will see this about the BBC - they might be liberal-lefties most of the time (annoyingly so) but they are also very very very monarchist.

    I suppose that's something. Their median view would probably be David Attenborough - an establishment patrician Leftie with a massive soft spot for the Royal Family.

    The BBC is also instinctively Unionist. We must be thankful for small mercies

    But they are merely reflecting the views of the vast majority of Brits, who are also monarchist and Unionist, even if for many it is tepidly felt or a very second order issue
    It's an interesting question whether a public broadcaster in a democracy should have any identifiable views. Shouldn't they be like the Queen was? - obviously British, but apparently devoid of opinions on anything, including the monarchy? Instead, they seem to adopt a default liberal centrism, instinctively feeling that this splits the difference between the extremes on either side, but which convinces partisans on both sides that they're hostile.
    Is there any public broadcaster in the world that is better than the BBC?
    Unlikely, but the Republic of Exceptionalia state radio company might be a contender.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521
    dixiedean said:

    "The King" is still quite jarring when it is used.
    Not a political comment at all, but merely a personal reaction.

    Bet you"re used to it by say end of this month though.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,330

    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    FPT: The 5 hour wait in Edinburgh was worth it. Some of my friends only waited 45 minutes by getting up really early.

    It was just so quiet inside the Kirk. But outside, that vibe when you're walking to church on Christmas eve, or on the way to the bonfire on 5th November, or to the high street at Hogmanay. Doing it in the dark really added to it for me.

    My attitude to the monarchy is "not worth the energy getting rid of it". But there is no doubt that Elizabeth II was history, and I'll be talking about last night on PB in about 50 years time ;)

    On the long wait in the dark - I wonder if it really does stir something in our minds? Just thinking of things like Hogmanay, Christmas, Guy Fawkes. Oidhche Challain in the Western Isles, Up Helly Aa on Shetland, and the Burning of the Clavie in Moray.
    More Scoddish than a sheep's heid simmering in Scotch broth on a Uist Rayburn.
    Did you not fancy taking your pipes to the queue last night to add to the atmosphere?
    There was a terrible piper on the other side of the Meadows. I didn't think there was a need for another one.

    I'm not sure mine would be playable, anyway. I think the wood goes after a while.
  • David Steel on BBC news.

    God I feel old.

    At least you're not feeling young like the King's brother.
This discussion has been closed.