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?
No , but that won’t stop the Tories from destroying it .
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.
I can handle that, it's when it says that HYUFD isn't available in your region that I completely lose it.
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?
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?
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?
Are you talking News specifically? ITN, Sky...
By "public" do you mean instrument of the state?
(I'd have agreed with you 15 years ago, and there are still some superb Reporters, however - evidence item 1 M'Lud: footage of Johnson's fiasco at the Cenotaph in 2019 being replaced by footage from 2016)
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.
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?
Interesting question, considering that you slipped the word public in there to limit it.
I don't feel able to judge what public broadcasters exist in other countries where they still exist. What we can judge is our own 'public broadcaster' isn't very good and isn't value for money and isn't even the best broadcaster in this country.
"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.
Not something that I am following and does sound the sort of case where one wants both sides to lose.
Is a legal case really the best way to take forward the issues of child gender?
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.
"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.
Not something that I am following and does sound the sort of case where one wants both sides to lose.
Is a legal case really the best way to take forward the issues of child gender?
That's a long predicted queue. Be a bugger to estimate it smaller than it is, and you end up having to trudge 2 miles just to reach the end of it in order to join.
"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.
Not something that I am following and does sound the sort of case where one wants both sides to lose.
Is a legal case really the best way to take forward the issues of child gender?
Whoever brought the action apparently thinks so.
Sure, but lots of people take forward stupid cases. The Wagatha Christie trial being a prime example.
Is there any public broadcaster in the world that is better than the BBC?
In terms of neutrality, yes, lots IMO - the ones I'm familiar with are DR1 (Denmark), ARD and ZDF (Germany - they do allow opinions, but clearly labelled as such) and SRG (Switzerland). None of them have the liberal centrist bias, as far as I noticed - they simply don't seem to have a bias in any direction - or didn't when I lived there.
In terms of quality of programmes, it's of course very much a matter of taste. Hard to beat the BBC when they're in form, for my taste, though I liked the ZDF repertoire too and still stream their crime movies from time to time.
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...
Is there any public broadcaster in the world that is better than the BBC?
In terms of neutrality, yes, lots IMO - the ones I'm familiar with are DR1 (Denmark), ARD and ZDF (Germany - they do allow opinions, but clearly labelled as such) and SRG (Switzerland). None of them have the liberal centrist bias, as far as I noticed - they simply don't seem to have a bias in any direction - or didn't when I lived there.
In terms of quality of programmes, it's of course very much a matter of taste. Hard to beat the BBC when they're in form, for my taste, though I liked the ZDF repertoire too and still stream their crime movies from time to time.
I dislike it intensely when someone from the Beeb is interviewing someone from a(nother) state owned broadcasting company and says to them "well you would say that as you are Government owned".
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
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?
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.
I don't feel strongly about him, in the sense that it keeps me awake at night. It's just that I have made up my mind about him as I would make up my mind about someone who was convicted of kicking a kitten to death, and turned out to have previous. A shit is a shit.
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.
But look at the improvement over time despite the LF only going up modestly. In the middle of the afternoon you used to get the testcard. Now you get quality content, something like Portillo narrating an interesting train journey that you haven't made and now don't need to because he's telling you all about it. It's night and day.
I think the country has gone mad . Some of the reporting has been so nauseating with every cliche dragged out . Now people are queuing in tents , it’s like Wimbledon for mourners ! And some of the people interviewed need to get a sense of perspective.
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get 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.......
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...
Would that be the ultimate Drag Queen?
I'll get my boa and sequins....
The danger of scheduled Tweets when a news story has broken, apparently the finale of Canada's Drag Race was scheduled for that evening on the day HMQ died, with the winner to be awarded a crown.
While the world's media was tuning in to London waiting for word on the Queen's health the broadcaster in Canada sent out a scheduled Tweet saying "the crown is up for grabs"
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
I don't believe that Ms Truss will tell the King that she has the Confidence of Parliament, and bring forward a Kings Speech that is then voted down.
I think the country has gone mad . Some of the reporting has been so nauseating with every cliche dragged out . Now people are queuing in tents , it’s like Wimbledon for mourners ! And some of the people interviewed need to get a sense of perspective.
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get to .
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
We’re nowhere near being able to take a sensible view on where Truss is on “best PM”. I’m no fan but I don’t think the fat lady is warming up yet.
I think the country has gone mad . Some of the reporting has been so nauseating with every cliche dragged out . Now people are queuing in tents , it’s like Wimbledon for mourners ! And some of the people interviewed need to get a sense of perspective.
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get to .
Tents are stupid. The queue moves slowly throughout.
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 tghink a good journalist should be able to get beyond their instinctive preferences, just like a good civil servant. If I worked for the BBC I'd unhesitatingly give airtime to anti-immigrants, anti-vaxxers etc. (and indeed to your good self), but also to Trots, anarchists, Putinists and any other opinions out there, as well as lots of the centrists who we see now. It'd just be more interesting.
Sweden used to have (perhaps still does have) a tax on mass media advertising, the proceeds of which were used to support publications with an unusual opinion, so as to support diversity. There was controversy when they gave a subsidy to a Trotskyist group that explicitly favoured a dictatorship (of the proletariat, all that stuff) - weren't they undermining the very principles on which they wrere established? No, said the board responsible IIRC - this is an unusual view, so it gets the subsidy - nothing in the law says it has to be a "nice" view. (I defer to @StuartDickson Dickson to correct anything i've misremembered.)
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
They confirm to the monarch they would vote down a Tory KS but would (depending on arithmetic) vote for a Labour KS or abstain on a Labour KS.
It will do the SNP no good to be seen to be propping the Tories up in any way shape or form - that way leads to a Labour revival in Scotland.
I think the country has gone mad . Some of the reporting has been so nauseating with every cliche dragged out . Now people are queuing in tents , it’s like Wimbledon for mourners ! And some of the people interviewed need to get a sense of perspective.
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get to .
It's a once in a lifetime event.
No other monarch will reign as long as her in this century (maybe even for many centuries) and no other monarch will have the same devotion given to them at the end of their life as the Queen is getting.
I'm usually someone that shy's away from hype but on this occasion what we are witnessing is truly historic and something we will never witness again so it's best to just go with it... it'll all be over this time next week.
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
I think the country has gone mad . Some of the reporting has been so nauseating with every cliche dragged out . Now people are queuing in tents , it’s like Wimbledon for mourners ! And some of the people interviewed need to get a sense of perspective.
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get to .
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
Unlikely to happen soon, the Tories went through Hague, IDS and Howard after their defeat in 1997 before they got to Cameron, Labour went through Ed Miliband and Corbyn after they lost in 2010 before they got to Starmer and through Foot and Kinnock after they lost in 1979 until they got to Smith and Blair
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?
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.
I don't feel strongly about him, in the sense that it keeps me awake at night.
Maybe not in that sense, but it doesn't seem like people react so passionately and vulgarly unless they feel very strongly about it.
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
They confirm to the monarch they would vote down a Tory KS but would (depending on arithmetic) vote for a Labour KS or abstain on a Labour KS.
It will do the SNP no good to be seen to be propping the Tories up in any way shape or form - that way leads to a Labour revival in Scotland.
If the Tories get more seats than Labour then all the SNP need to do is abstain on condition they get their independence referendum.
They could be quite content to have an independence referendum with the Tories still in Downing Street, and it will have been 'a generation' by then too!
MIT Technology Review @techreview “DALL-E has been especially valuable and important in its ability to make storytelling more efficient and to help people be more creative." Hear from Product Lead of DALL-E 2, Joanne Jang of OpenAI at our flagship event EmTech MIT. https://trib.al/mwcGgTG
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
I don't believe that Ms Truss will tell the King that she has the Confidence of Parliament, and bring forward a Kings Speech that is then voted down.
In the absence of any formal deals nobody can state they have the confidence of the house without testing it. There may be promises of a new election in 6 months to get a KS through and then a lame duck minority to get there. The 'rest' hold all the cards and can make a weak Tory minority really suffer.
I think the country has gone mad . Some of the reporting has been so nauseating with every cliche dragged out . Now people are queuing in tents , it’s like Wimbledon for mourners ! And some of the people interviewed need to get a sense of perspective.
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get to .
We are now playing a game of spotting our favourite BBC website story headline. The favourite today was “The Queen’s Love of Her Land Rovers.” I can’t wait to hear what her favourite tea-towel was tomorrow
I think the country has gone mad . Some of the reporting has been so nauseating with every cliche dragged out . Now people are queuing in tents , it’s like Wimbledon for mourners ! And some of the people interviewed need to get a sense of perspective.
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get to .
It's a once in a lifetime event.
No other monarch will reign as long as her in this century (maybe even for many centuries) and no other monarch will have the same devotion given to them at the end of their life as the Queen is getting.
I'm usually someone that shy's away from hype but on this occasion what we are witnessing is truly historic and something we will never witness again so it's best to just go with it... it'll all be over this time next week.
I’ll be disappointed if the death of the monarch is a once in my lifetime event tbh, but life is cruel..
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
They confirm to the monarch they would vote down a Tory KS but would (depending on arithmetic) vote for a Labour KS or abstain on a Labour KS.
It will do the SNP no good to be seen to be propping the Tories up in any way shape or form - that way leads to a Labour revival in Scotland.
If the Tories get more seats than Labour then all the SNP need to do is abstain on condition they get their independence referendum.
They could be quite content to have an independence referendum with the Tories still in Downing Street, and it will have been 'a generation' by then too!
The Tories will never give the SNP another independence referendum and it would be political suicide for the SNP and a gift for Labour for them to even consider propping up the Tories anyway, hence they won't.
On present polls however Labour will clearly win most seats and form a minority goverment
"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.
Not something that I am following and does sound the sort of case where one wants both sides to lose.
Is a legal case really the best way to take forward the issues of child gender?
Whoever brought the action apparently thinks so.
Sure, but lots of people take forward stupid cases. The Wagatha Christie trial being a prime example.
You have 2 choices
1) a nation of laws 2) a nation of whatever bullshit the current ruler thinks will float their boat
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
Unlikely to happen soon, the Tories went through Hague, IDS and Howard after their defeat in 1997 before they got to Cameron, Labour went through Ed Miliband and Corbyn after they lost in 2010 before they got to Starmer and through Foot and Kinnock after they lost in 1979 until they got to Smith and Blair
Nonetheless, they need to purge. No party wins elections from the extremes. The nutters need to go.
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
Unlikely to happen soon, the Tories went through Hague, IDS and Howard after their defeat in 1997 before they got to Cameron, Labour went through Ed Miliband and Corbyn after they lost in 2010 before they got to Starmer and through Foot and Kinnock after they lost in 1979 until they got to Smith and Blair
Nonetheless, they need to purge. No party wins elections from the extremes. The nutters need to go.
Usually parties don't win from extremes but Thatcher was more extreme than Callaghan in 1979 and won, even though most had written her off.
If the economy is in poor shape even extremist leaders can occasionally win
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
They confirm to the monarch they would vote down a Tory KS but would (depending on arithmetic) vote for a Labour KS or abstain on a Labour KS.
It will do the SNP no good to be seen to be propping the Tories up in any way shape or form - that way leads to a Labour revival in Scotland.
If the Tories get more seats than Labour then all the SNP need to do is abstain on condition they get their independence referendum.
They could be quite content to have an independence referendum with the Tories still in Downing Street, and it will have been 'a generation' by then too!
The Tories will never give the SNP another independence referendum and it would be political suicide for the SNP and a gift for Labour for them to even consider propping up the Tories anyway, hence they won't.
On present polls however Labour will clearly win most seats and form a minority goverment
Never?
That's funny, you thought the Tories would never elect Liz Truss a few months ago. Then again you thought that Rishi was a "traitor" then voted for him, so I'll take your "never" with a pinch of salt.
The BBC is great, no one has its breadth or reach. Why the Tories are against it is quite beyond me. Fund it properly, conquer the world.
See that's what it should be doing, but a licence fee really is incompatible with it becoming a global broadcaster. So instead we have the BBC, and their supporters, fighting to keep an outdated funding approach and the BBC going down the pan. To the extent that YouTube alone now has viewing figures amongst young people on a par with all broadcast TV combined (including recording and streaming).
It's probably too late now, with Disney, and Apple, and Amazon on the march, it's hard to see how the BBC can compete. Even the likes of Sky (Comcast) and Virgin Media (Liberty Global) are going to be in big trouble, and they have far greater resources than the BBC. Sports rights are going to move online and then broadcast TV will go into a steep decline.
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?
Interesting question, considering that you slipped the word public in there to limit it.
I don't feel able to judge what public broadcasters exist in other countries where they still exist. What we can judge is our own 'public broadcaster' isn't very good and isn't value for money and isn't even the best broadcaster in this country.
Great VFM imo. Oodles of excellent tv radio and internet every week for the price of a frothy coffee. I struggle to think of any better bargain. Maybe a box of matches. That's always "struck" me - oh god lol I'm on fire here! - as fabulous value.
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
The PLP has not in my memory been AT ALL left-wing, GIN - that's why Corbyn struggled even to get the minimal 40 MPs to get him on the ballot, and only squeaked in because Margaret Beckett and a couple of others thought he should get a hearing before being defeated ("a fucking stupid decision", she later said). The membership as a whole is certainly left of the PLP, though as the recent NEC vote showed there is now a slim centre-right majority.
I'm still a member of Momentum, as are several friends, but we all feel we need to concentrate on winning the election at this point. We can and no doubt will whinge about Starmer not being left enough later, but as in 1997 there's plenty to do merely to restore sensible government with a vaguely social democratic flavour. It'll do for the first term.
I think the country has gone mad . Some of the reporting has been so nauseating with every cliche dragged out . Now people are queuing in tents , it’s like Wimbledon for mourners ! And some of the people interviewed need to get a sense of perspective.
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get to .
It's a once in a lifetime event.
No other monarch will reign as long as her in this century (maybe even for many centuries) and no other monarch will have the same devotion given to them at the end of their life as the Queen is getting.
I'm usually someone that shy's away from hype but on this occasion what we are witnessing is truly historic and something we will never witness again so it's best to just go with it... it'll all be over this time next week.
I’ll be disappointed if the death of the monarch is a once in my lifetime event tbh, but life is cruel..
It's not the death that's bringing out the masses (when KCIII meets his end the response will be far more "muted") it's a combination of the length of tenure and service (70 years is just incredible - A reign that stretches from Churchill to Truss with various pygmies, non-entities and footnotes like Ms Sturgeon along the way)
Combined with her unique personality... the fact that in 70 years no one really knew what she thought about anything (except for the odd limited intervention here and there. She made herself a mystery to her people and was more popular for it.
The response to the death of this Monarch is truly once in a lifetime stuff.
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?
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
There is massive churn in the Sindy polling numbers the result in statis but show big changes that doesn't fit your simplistic take on life experience.
The younger age groups have got more Yes than 2014, with the very youngest getting extremely Yessey and the next group getting somewhat Yesser. But balancing that out the 65+ age group has swung heavily No with older Yes/Remain voter turning into future No voters.
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
Unlikely to happen soon, the Tories went through Hague, IDS and Howard after their defeat in 1997 before they got to Cameron, Labour went through Ed Miliband and Corbyn after they lost in 2010 before they got to Starmer and through Foot and Kinnock after they lost in 1979 until they got to Smith and Blair
Nonetheless, they need to purge. No party wins elections from the extremes. The nutters need to go.
Usually parties don't win from extremes but Thatcher was more extreme than Callaghan in 1979 and won, even though most had written her off.
If the economy is in poor shape even extremist leaders can occasionally win
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
Unlikely to happen soon, the Tories went through Hague, IDS and Howard after their defeat in 1997 before they got to Cameron, Labour went through Ed Miliband and Corbyn after they lost in 2010 before they got to Starmer and through Foot and Kinnock after they lost in 1979 until they got to Smith and Blair
Nonetheless, they need to purge. No party wins elections from the extremes. The nutters need to go.
The Tories have been on the centre ground of British politics for the last four elections.
Of course some cranky remainers seem to think that anyone who advocated leaving the EU was "extreme" rather than in touch with the centre of politics.
Having mingled with younger colleagues these past two days it is the prospect of a day off work on Monday that has grabbed their attention.
Are they aware that they will have to spend the entire day watching the funeral on TV as nothing will be open?
My department is working pretty normally, with maybe 20% off, mostly with childcare issues etc. Patients will be contacted to confirm attendance, but most are desperate to be seen so we are expecting a decent turnout. We will put the telly on in the waiting area as a token gesture.
We get a lieu day of our choice, so not really martyrs.
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
They confirm to the monarch they would vote down a Tory KS but would (depending on arithmetic) vote for a Labour KS or abstain on a Labour KS.
It will do the SNP no good to be seen to be propping the Tories up in any way shape or form - that way leads to a Labour revival in Scotland.
If they abstain on a Lab KS then on this arithmetic Lab might not have the votes, depends on the LD, DUP etc totals Once the Tories have a seat lead of more than buttons it becomes very unattractive for Labour to be in bat, they would clearly prefer a weak, tired, vulnerable Tory party muffing up for 3 months before pulling the plug and getting their majority.
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?
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.
I don't feel strongly about him, in the sense that it keeps me awake at night.
Maybe not in that sense, but it doesn't seem like people react so passionately and vulgarly unless they feel very strongly about it.
Wrong, and what the fuck is this "vulgarly"? Have we fallen through a wormhole into the 1960s?
Don't know about you but I am a net payer of tax. When my money is being lavished on a fuckpig, I feel I have the right to point this out.
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?
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
Probably 7, when he’s coming up to 80. Challenge is George would be a little young at that point
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
The PLP has not in my memory been AT ALL left-wing, GIN - that's why Corbyn struggled even to get the minimal 40 MPs to get him on the ballot, and only squeaked in because Margaret Beckett and a couple of others thought he should get a hearing before being defeated ("a fucking stupid decision", she later said). The membership as a whole is certainly left of the PLP, though as the recent NEC vote showed there is now a slim centre-right majority.
I'm still a member of Momentum, as are several friends, but we all feel we need to concentrate on winning the election at this point. We can and no doubt will whinge about Starmer not being left enough later, but as in 1997 there's plenty to do merely to restore sensible government with a vaguely social democratic flavour. It'll do for the first term.
LOL Nick. You shill for whoever happens to be Labour leader. Your journey on here from Blairite to Corbynista was truly incredible!
Free speech is under attack because the left only care about it when people with left-wing opinions are being affected, and people with right-wing opinions only care about it when people with right-wing opinions are being affected by it. Until they both learn to stand up for free speech in all circumstances there's going to be a problem defending it. The protestors complaining about someone being arrested for holding up a sign saying something like "end the monarchy" wouldn't be bothered by someone being arrested if they were holding a sign saying "no more immigration", and vice versa.
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?
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?
NYT Politics @nytpolitics · 14m Breaking News: Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation uncovered Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and led to his impeachment for lying under oath and obstructing justice, died on Tuesday. He was 76.
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
"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.
Not something that I am following and does sound the sort of case where one wants both sides to lose.
Is a legal case really the best way to take forward the issues of child gender?
Whoever brought the action apparently thinks so.
Sure, but lots of people take forward stupid cases. The Wagatha Christie trial being a prime example.
You have 2 choices
1) a nation of laws 2) a nation of whatever bullshit the current ruler thinks will float their boat
Choices, choices…..
Yes, I am all in favour of the rule of law. Fox Jr got his training contract last week.
The oppositional nature of British law often just makes a mess of sensitive issues like this, when a non-partisan evidence based approach is needed.
Having mingled with younger colleagues these past two days it is the prospect of a day off work on Monday that has grabbed their attention.
Are they aware that they will have to spend the entire day watching the funeral on TV as nothing will be open?
My department is working pretty normally, with maybe 20% off, mostly with childcare issues etc. Patients will be contacted to confirm attendance, but most are desperate to be seen so we are expecting a decent turnout. We will put the telly on in the waiting area as a token gesture.
We get a lieu day of our choice, so not really martyrs.
Sounds incredibly sensible.
The Queen would have not wanted it any other way.
Edit: why shut schools forcing parents off work? The kids could watch the funeral on TV at school with teacher helping with context.
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
They confirm to the monarch they would vote down a Tory KS but would (depending on arithmetic) vote for a Labour KS or abstain on a Labour KS.
It will do the SNP no good to be seen to be propping the Tories up in any way shape or form - that way leads to a Labour revival in Scotland.
If the Tories get more seats than Labour then all the SNP need to do is abstain on condition they get their independence referendum.
They could be quite content to have an independence referendum with the Tories still in Downing Street, and it will have been 'a generation' by then too!
The Tories will never give the SNP another independence referendum and it would be political suicide for the SNP and a gift for Labour for them to even consider propping up the Tories anyway, hence they won't.
On present polls however Labour will clearly win most seats and form a minority goverment
Never?
That's funny, you thought the Tories would never elect Liz Truss a few months ago. Then again you thought that Rishi was a "traitor" then voted for him, so I'll take your "never" with a pinch of salt.
If it was down to just Tory MPs then Tory MPs would probably have elected Sunak, if it was down to just Tory members then Tory members would have elected Badenoch. Truss won because of who she wasn't not who she was with the membership and by abandoning most of her previous positions to get the support of ERG MPs
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
Unlikely to happen soon, the Tories went through Hague, IDS and Howard after their defeat in 1997 before they got to Cameron, Labour went through Ed Miliband and Corbyn after they lost in 2010 before they got to Starmer and through Foot and Kinnock after they lost in 1979 until they got to Smith and Blair
Setting aside the strong personal loyalty to the late Queen, which I accept is real, I really don't think as many people are as fussed about the concept of the monarchy as most seem to make out. I reckon around 20% of the population are fervently pro-monarchy, and about 10% fervently republican. The remaining 70% are pretty indifferent - although many of them quite enjoy the celebrity tittle-tattle that surrounds the monarchy, they don't have a strong view on whether we should or shouldn't have a monarch.
Once the current events are over, I'd guess that indifference will become the dominant attitude again. For very many, it's a question of tolerance of what we have, because 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
NYT Politics @nytpolitics · 14m Breaking News: Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation uncovered Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and led to his impeachment for lying under oath and obstructing justice, died on Tuesday. He was 76.
Will they find a way to blame Britain for this unfortunate turn of events...
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...
I see SKS's most important role to be the forcing of the Conservative Party to take a good hard look at itself whilst in opposition. I want them to rebuild along the lines of the party they used to be with politicians that appeared to be competent.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
The PLP has not in my memory been AT ALL left-wing, GIN - that's why Corbyn struggled even to get the minimal 40 MPs to get him on the ballot, and only squeaked in because Margaret Beckett and a couple of others thought he should get a hearing before being defeated ("a fucking stupid decision", she later said). The membership as a whole is certainly left of the PLP, though as the recent NEC vote showed there is now a slim centre-right majority.
I'm still a member of Momentum, as are several friends, but we all feel we need to concentrate on winning the election at this point. We can and no doubt will whinge about Starmer not being left enough later, but as in 1997 there's plenty to do merely to restore sensible government with a vaguely social democratic flavour. It'll do for the first term.
LOL Nick. You shill for whoever happens to be Labour leader. Your journey on here from Blairite to Corbynista was truly incredible!
To be fair to Nick, he was clear about his support for Corbyn at a time when it was not necessarily apparent Corbyn would be the next leader.
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
Won’t the libs have done well enough in that scenario to have a lib-lab pact?
NYT Politics @nytpolitics · 14m Breaking News: Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation uncovered Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and led to his impeachment for lying under oath and obstructing justice, died on Tuesday. He was 76.
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
I went just for the spectacle. I think people are misunderstanding the attraction - it's just history. I did it for the same reasons why I went to the Vatican, or Machu Picchu or Maes Howe.
My favourite BBC website. Important. Beautiful script. Not something you get from pure commercial operations.
My main feeling about the BBC is sadness. I agree that things like that are brilliant, but on the other hand I barely watch anything other than the news now. I still listen to some radio but even then they keep losing stuff like Kermode and Mayo, and even TMS isn’t what it was. So I don’t want it to die, but I fear it might, and even more so I fear that it will do so with a whimper.
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?
Are you talking News specifically? ITN, Sky...
By "public" do you mean instrument of the state?
(I'd have agreed with you 15 years ago, and there are still some superb Reporters, however - evidence item 1 M'Lud: footage of Johnson's fiasco at the Cenotaph in 2019 being replaced by footage from 2016)
I just mean in the round. I agree with you about recent cowtowing but still I think the beeb is a national asset. It keeps the rest honest too. My feeling is if you take it away you'll see a slide in standards and integrity.
My favourite BBC website. Important. Beautiful script. Not something you get from pure commercial operations.
My main feeling about the BBC is sadness. I agree that things like that are brilliant, but on the other hand I barely watch anything other than the news now. I still listen to some radio but even then they keep losing stuff like Kermode and Mayo, and even TMS isn’t what it was. So I don’t want it to die, but I fear it might, and even more so I fear that it will do so with a whimper.
It has a stupid payment system and I can't connect BBC Sounds app to my speaker system. If the app doesn't have signal for more than 5 mins then it closes itself, so I have to stop the car and fiddle with it to get the podcast/radio back on.
Lets take a hypothetical example for this thread. This is NOT A PREDICTION, but a thought experiment Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
Won’t the libs have done well enough in that scenario to have a lib-lab pact?
There would unless the SNP actively voted with the Tories
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
I went just for the spectacle. I think people are misunderstanding the attraction - it's just history. I did it for the same reasons why I went to the Vatican, or Machu Picchu or Maes Howe.
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
Yep. I tend to see royalism a bit the same as religion, ie not my cup of tea but whatever floats your boat just as long as you DON’T FECKING EVANGELISE. The present spasm seems towards the cultish ends of things, and of course the monarchy and how it expresses itself is entwined with the way we’re governed whether we like it or not.
NYT Politics @nytpolitics · 14m Breaking News: Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation uncovered Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and led to his impeachment for lying under oath and obstructing justice, died on Tuesday. He was 76.
NYT Politics @nytpolitics · 14m Breaking News: Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation uncovered Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and led to his impeachment for lying under oath and obstructing justice, died on Tuesday. He was 76.
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
Yep. I tend to see royalism a bit the same as religion, ie not my cup of tea but whatever floats your boat just as long as you DON’T FECKING EVANGELISE. The present spasm seems towards the cultish ends of things, and of course the monarchy and how it expresses itself is entwined with the way we’re governed whether we like it or not.
I think other PBers should understand that this is a uniquely difficult week for republican Scottish nationalists. Sturgeon singing GSTK and pledging to uphold the Protestant religion...ouch.
NYT Politics @nytpolitics · 14m Breaking News: Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation uncovered Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and led to his impeachment for lying under oath and obstructing justice, died on Tuesday. He was 76.
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
I went just for the spectacle. I think people are misunderstanding the attraction - it's just history. I did it for the same reasons why I went to the Vatican, or Machu Picchu or Maes Howe.
Yes, the reason I went to a churchyard to sit and hear the bells was just that - to partake of an event, check it out, take a sniff.
Free speech is under attack because the left only care about it when people with left-wing opinions are being affected, and people with right-wing opinions only care about it when people with right-wing opinions are being affected by it. Until they both learn to stand up for free speech in all circumstances there's going to be a problem defending it. The protestors complaining about someone being arrested for holding up a sign saying something like "end the monarchy" wouldn't be bothered by someone being arrested if they were holding a sign saying "no more immigration", and vice versa.
That's why the world needs centrists. Plenty of evidence of centrist (and monarchist) voices on Twitter doing exactly that this week.
NYT Politics @nytpolitics · 14m Breaking News: Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation uncovered Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and led to his impeachment for lying under oath and obstructing justice, died on Tuesday. He was 76.
People may think the extent is too much, personal taste will vary, but I find it hard to believe when people act surprised that others are not just going 'Oh, she had a great life'. It was the Head of State, in a place where Heads of State do not change often. It's not just some random very old lady dying.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
I dunno, I do find it a bit hard to understand at the more extreme end, ie not just "it really affected me" but "willing to be in a multi hour queue across London". That seems not merely like heartfelt grief but a kind of public acting out and display of emotion that is alien to me. (The grief I have less trouble with understanding -- clearly other people felt a closer connection to the monarch than I ever have.)
Yep. I tend to see royalism a bit the same as religion, ie not my cup of tea but whatever floats your boat just as long as you DON’T FECKING EVANGELISE. The present spasm seems towards the cultish ends of things, and of course the monarchy and how it expresses itself is entwined with the way we’re governed whether we like it or not.
I think other PBers should understand that this is a uniquely difficult week for republican Scottish nationalists. Sturgeon singing GSTK and pledging to uphold the Protestant religion...ouch.
Sturgeon has sung the national anthem previously as most people living in Scotland with an interest in politics would know. The same weirdo members of the UK cult screeched game changer then as well.
Comments
By "public" do you mean instrument of the state?
(I'd have agreed with you 15 years ago, and there are still some superb Reporters, however - evidence item 1 M'Lud: footage of Johnson's fiasco at the Cenotaph in 2019 being replaced by footage from 2016)
I don't feel able to judge what public broadcasters exist in other countries where they still exist. What we can judge is our own 'public broadcaster' isn't very good and isn't value for money and isn't even the best broadcaster in this country.
Is a legal case really the best way to take forward the issues of child gender?
In terms of quality of programmes, it's of course very much a matter of taste. Hard to beat the BBC when they're in form, for my taste, though I liked the ZDF repertoire too and still stream their crime movies from time to time.
I'll get my boa and sequins....
Tories 290, Labour 280 and for some reason SNat turnout struggles and they get 35 seats. Now do they immediately vote down a Tory KS or do they conclude the Tories will have to beg and compromise to get anything through, allow a KS to pass and sit there knowing a Tory minority will be a Nat recruiting sergeant and they can pull the plug whenever they like/at the most opportune moment?
And before I’m rounded on I actually did like the Queen but really she had a great long life and reached an age many would be happy to get to .
While the world's media was tuning in to London waiting for word on the Queen's health the broadcaster in Canada sent out a scheduled Tweet saying "the crown is up for grabs"
Having mingled with younger colleagues these past two days it is the prospect of a day off work on Monday that has grabbed their attention.
Suggest a hammock strung between two horses.
Sweden used to have (perhaps still does have) a tax on mass media advertising, the proceeds of which were used to support publications with an unusual opinion, so as to support diversity. There was controversy when they gave a subsidy to a Trotskyist group that explicitly favoured a dictatorship (of the proletariat, all that stuff) - weren't they undermining the very principles on which they wrere established? No, said the board responsible IIRC - this is an unusual view, so it gets the subsidy - nothing in the law says it has to be a "nice" view. (I defer to @StuartDickson Dickson to correct anything i've misremembered.)
It will do the SNP no good to be seen to be propping the Tories up in any way shape or form - that way leads to a Labour revival in Scotland.
No other monarch will reign as long as her in this century (maybe even for many centuries) and no other monarch will have the same devotion given to them at the end of their life as the Queen is getting.
I'm usually someone that shy's away from hype but on this occasion what we are witnessing is truly historic and something we will never witness again so it's best to just go with it... it'll all be over this time next week.
It would not hurt SKS to do some purging of his own although it does seem that a lot of the Corbynite nutters have been dumped.
It's not mad. Or even if it is, it is not hard to understand.
Maybe that is why it is jarring when it is used.
They could be quite content to have an independence referendum with the Tories still in Downing Street, and it will have been 'a generation' by then too!
MIT Technology Review
@techreview
“DALL-E has been especially valuable and important in its ability to make storytelling more efficient and to help people be more creative." Hear from Product Lead of DALL-E 2, Joanne Jang of OpenAI at our flagship event EmTech MIT. https://trib.al/mwcGgTG
https://twitter.com/techreview/status/1567721099701411841
Watch far more on Netflix and Disney+ both of which cost a fraction of the amount.
On present polls however Labour will clearly win most seats and form a minority goverment
1) a nation of laws
2) a nation of whatever bullshit the current ruler thinks will float their boat
Choices, choices…..
If the economy is in poor shape even extremist leaders can occasionally win
That's funny, you thought the Tories would never elect Liz Truss a few months ago. Then again you thought that Rishi was a "traitor" then voted for him, so I'll take your "never" with a pinch of salt.
It's probably too late now, with Disney, and Apple, and Amazon on the march, it's hard to see how the BBC can compete. Even the likes of Sky (Comcast) and Virgin Media (Liberty Global) are going to be in big trouble, and they have far greater resources than the BBC. Sports rights are going to move online and then broadcast TV will go into a steep decline.
I'm still a member of Momentum, as are several friends, but we all feel we need to concentrate on winning the election at this point. We can and no doubt will whinge about Starmer not being left enough later, but as in 1997 there's plenty to do merely to restore sensible government with a vaguely social democratic flavour. It'll do for the first term.
Combined with her unique personality... the fact that in 70 years no one really knew what she thought about anything (except for the odd limited intervention here and there. She made herself a mystery to her people and was more popular for it.
The response to the death of this Monarch is truly once in a lifetime stuff.
My favourite BBC website. Important. Beautiful script. Not something you get from pure commercial operations.
The younger age groups have got more Yes than 2014, with the very youngest getting extremely Yessey and the next group getting somewhat Yesser. But balancing that out the 65+ age group has swung heavily No with older Yes/Remain voter turning into future No voters.
Of course some cranky remainers seem to think that anyone who advocated leaving the EU was "extreme" rather than in touch with the centre of politics.
We get a lieu day of our choice, so not really martyrs.
Once the Tories have a seat lead of more than buttons it becomes very unattractive for Labour to be in bat, they would clearly prefer a weak, tired, vulnerable Tory party muffing up for 3 months before pulling the plug and getting their majority.
Disney usually has Queens' deaths covered.
Don't know about you but I am a net payer of tax. When my money is being lavished on a fuckpig, I feel I have the right to point this out.
@nytpolitics
·
14m
Breaking News: Ken Starr, the independent counsel whose investigation uncovered Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern and led to his impeachment for lying under oath and obstructing justice, died on Tuesday. He was 76.
The oppositional nature of British law often just makes a mess of sensitive issues like this, when a non-partisan evidence based approach is needed.
The Queen would have not wanted it any other way.
Edit: why shut schools forcing parents off work? The kids could watch the funeral on TV at school with teacher helping with context.
Once the current events are over, I'd guess that indifference will become the dominant attitude again. For very many, it's a question of tolerance of what we have, because 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/sep/13/jean-luc-godard-giant-of-the-french-new-wave-dies-at-91
In the bin.
Any hypothetical you construct that start with the SNP voting to directly put the Tories in power falls at the first hurdle and is a waste of time.
To do so would spit in the face of its voters, shatter the party and cause the total collapse of the SNP.
It's an important historical event, like being at Glasto (another thing I'd rather stick pins in my eyes than do) instead of watching it on TV.
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin
The reason we are blocking a bed is apparently there is just ONE medic covering the wards able to sign the paperwork.
We have to self discharge and come back tomorrow to pick up drugs. 2:30 round trip and more time off work.
Still the NHS saved her life. The agony and ecstasy of the NHS.
Meanwhile, no re-showing of the bendy penis disease advert, which appears to be targetted at the breakfast-time audience.
You have no idea how much we all hope that Mrs HYUFD discloses to you that she was a he until all that surgery at age 16. Praise the Lord.