Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
I do think however if you are a republican support for the monarchy being concentrated on white people is a good thing. Demographic change means support for the monarchy will inevitably drain away
I think all ethnic groups were well represented in the Queue - probably not much different to their ratio in the UK.
Oh sure there were some there but nowhere near the proportion you would expect. Bear in mind the latest census will show the uk no more than 80% white british at best..london likely less than 40% white british
Not sure if you can tell a Pole from a Brit. Of any colour, can you?
Mmm but london at best now 50% white of any background. Dont think we saw anything near a 50 50 mix either outside Buckingham Palace or in that queue
Why do you keep banging on about white people? Are you some sort of racist? Or just another troll who will be gone in an hour or two?
Because if you support the monarchy the lack of support of the institution from ethnic minorities will become a problem 10 to 20 years down the line
I am not a monarchist. I regret the late Queen's passing but I do not really care about the institution of the monarchy. But as far as I can tell, those who do support the monarchy seem to come from all sectors of society.
Do you have good statistical information that things are otherwise? Or are your stats gleaned from counting people on TV?
This claims 37/33 split in favour of the monarchy amongst ethnic minorities. If that is true, its not going to tip the balance of support given the strong support elsewhere, and shows at worst division rather than hostility.
Yes but as the proportion of ethnic minorities grows it will only need a small slip in the popularity of the monarchy for things to change. Stats also dont show intensity of feeling. The lack of ethnic minorities outside Buckingham Palace speaks for itself
I don't think it is correct to make 'assumptions' that non white people are opposed to monarchy; and that this will continue indefinitely long in to the future. It goes down to a question of whether or not the monarchy is able to respond well to a multi racial society, which is an unknown.
There is a valid question though; about how much people understand the racial make up of the UK will change if the current patterns of migration continue, and what the political consequences of this will be.
I think the evidence of assimilation to British traditions over the generations is pretty clear.
There may well be a time when the Monarchy is deposed, but it will be from wider changes in society, and probably would only take place if there were a completely unsuitable heir.
For most of us, royalty will just be a quaint but irrelevant bit of national background, mostly of interest to readers of the sidebar of shame.
I used to share your ambivalence towards the monarchy, but I think that its ceremonial role has deep constitutional significance and shouldn't be underestimated. It is what makes the British system different from other monarchies.
Its cultural significance will probably fade following the death of the queen, which will be a challenge. Another question is how it will ultimately fare in the 'woke' era.
I think the monarchy has no real constitutional significance in practice.
If a monarch actually intervened politically in anything of consequence they would be out the door very quickly. They are just performing poodles, adding to the spectacle, and entertainment of the nation.
@MichaelLCrick Sir David Butler, the father of psephology, who’ll be 98 next month, remembers as a small boy, his great-grandmother Alice telling him how she and her sister, as young girls, watched the Duke of Wellington’s state funeral procession in 1852. They had grandstand seats.
The seats, for a grandstand near Marble Arch, had cost ten shillings each (about £50 now). But Alice’s stepmother complained they were an extravagance. “No, my dear. Not extravagance,” her father reportedly replied. “It’s something they will remember all their lives.”
“And I have, David, haven’t I?” his great-grandmother remarked to the young David Butler, 80 or so years after the great funeral of the duke who won the Battle of Waterloo. And for the next 90 years or so Butler has been telling this story too.
Is there any person still alive other than Sir David Butler who has heard a first-hand account from an eyewitness to the funeral procession of the Duke of Wellington?
Also, Sir David boasts that his father was born in 1878, before the invention of the internal combustion engine; his paternal grandfather in 1831, before the Great Reform Act; and his Butler great-grandfather in 1774, before the American Declaration of Independence. Beat that!
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
@MichaelLCrick Sir David Butler, the father of psephology, who’ll be 98 next month, remembers as a small boy, his great-grandmother Alice telling him how she and her sister, as young girls, watched the Duke of Wellington’s state funeral procession in 1852. They had grandstand seats.
The seats, for a grandstand near Marble Arch, had cost ten shillings each (about £50 now). But Alice’s stepmother complained they were an extravagance. “No, my dear. Not extravagance,” her father reportedly replied. “It’s something they will remember all their lives.”
“And I have, David, haven’t I?” his great-grandmother remarked to the young David Butler, 80 or so years after the great funeral of the duke who won the Battle of Waterloo. And for the next 90 years or so Butler has been telling this story too.
Is there any person still alive other than Sir David Butler who has heard a first-hand account from an eyewitness to the funeral procession of the Duke of Wellington?
Also, Sir David boasts that his father was born in 1878, before the invention of the internal combustion engine; his paternal grandfather in 1831, before the Great Reform Act; and his Butler great-grandfather in 1774, before the American Declaration of Independence. Beat that!
How the heroes of ones youth may fall: Johnny Rotten complaining that the release of the Sex Pistols´classic "God Save the Queen" by other members of the band was "tasteless"...
Wasn`t being tasteless at least a major part of the point of Punk?
I guess I missed it when Rat Scabies et al started dressing in Laura Ashley chintz and having Hyacinth Bouquet candlelit suppers.
As a general rule rock stars opinions age very badly over the decades. Lydon and Morrisey etc are following in the well trodden path of Clapton, Daltrey and Waters. Where once Lydon encapsulated youthful menace, now he apes right wing shock jock views.
Or perhaps, they've always been dickheads and you're only just realising?
rcs1000 asked: "They like cheap servants in winter?"
No, because the rich people mostly aren't there during the winters. So the servant class goes on unemployment if they stay on Martha's Vineyard, or migrate somewhere else for the winter. (If there is an equivalent in Britain, I am unfamliar with it.)
Chinese delegation barred from viewing Queen Elizabeth’s coffin in parliament. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle “it was inappropriate for Zheng to meet on the Commons estate and in our place of work when his country has imposed sanctions against some of our members.”
I think theres a risk of dramatically overstating the electoral effect of this policy. 65% against it but so what? It costs nothing. It no more leads to polling decline than the 80 to 90% in favour of the energy measures have produced a landslide lead. Plus it will be announced amidst a tsunami of support. 'This package is to provide support and boost growth' 'Well lets see how that goes'
Opportunity cost. Now is the time she could be announcing widely popular policies that would close the polling gap.
IF Truss is going to give people their money back, then go big. Don't trim taxes, slash them, so that ordinary folk see it in their wages.
People dont mind others doing well if they are feeling OK about their own finances.
That’s the problem with CT cuts (which nobody really feels) and reversing tax rises that hasn’t yet happened. That plus crumbling public services just isn’t going to cut it.
As others have commented Thatcher had North Sea revenues and privatisation windfalls to play with. Truss has a bare cupboard.
She can borrow us to growth?
There is a kind of consistency and logic in much of the policy agenda. They want us to be like the USA. Poor public infrastructure, high inequality but high growth and entrepreneurial opportunity.
Fair enough, but the UK isn’t the US with the continental scale market and labour force or its own vast energy and agricultural reserves. And the US spends billions upon billions of public money on its own industries.
The US indeed has vast energy reserves, but per capita, I wonder if the UK's are bigger, given that Britain is essentially a lump of coal.
Britain is being made poorer, not by fate but by dogma.
Britain is not a lump of coal, albeit there are substantial coal reserves. And there are some interesting ways to extract energy from those reserves (coal seam methane and in-situ gasification are my favourite).
But traditional deep shaft coal mining in the UK, ain't it.
Coal mining in the UK had largely died out even before carbon taxes and climate change were a factor. Simply: it's a hell of a lot cheaper to mine from big open pits in Colombia than it is to send miners down deep shafts in Colombia.
Let me put this in context for a second. Powder River Basin coal, in the US, can be extracted for less than $15/ton.
There's no way that there's any coal in the UK that can be extracted (even excluding capital costs) for less than $100.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
It's a pretty clear sign that the place requires reform.
Oh oh! The Queen's dying has got my little one thinking - we are on to the age, and I think underpinning that the residual life expectancy, of Santa this morning.
Oh oh! The Queen's dying has got my little one thinking - we are on to the age, and I think underpinning that the residual life expectancy, of Santa this morning.
Christmas puddings and mince pies are back on the shelves already.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
It's a pretty clear sign that the place requires reform.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
For all the talk about centuries of continuity, I doubt if any realistic observer is sure the monarchy will survive for another 70 years. If it is to do so, it needs to get away from an emphasis on the supposed personal qualities of any individual King or Queen and rest once again on the abstract quality of the Crown. Perhaps one day historians will recognise that the most important constitutional commentator of the period was not Sir Simon Schama or Lord Hennessy but Johnny Rotten, who marked the Silver Jubilee of 1977 with the words: “She ain’t no human being.”
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
I’m pretty sure that Blair would take a peerage if it were offered, as would Cameron. It may be that Major’s refusal is blocking the process.
You could, for example, have made the same comment about all living PMs except Home (who had already been a peer) from 1979 to 1984. Macmillan was then made Earl of Stockton and he was swiftly joined by Callaghan and Wilson.
Churchill also refused at least one offer of a peerage, as did the Chamberlains.
Chinese delegation barred from viewing Queen Elizabeth’s coffin in parliament. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle “it was inappropriate for Zheng to meet on the Commons estate and in our place of work when his country has imposed sanctions against some of our members.”
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
'The historian Peter Hennessy recently wrote that his generation (he is more or the less the same age as the King) found it hard to imagine any monarch other than Elizabeth II. Like many remarks that sound conservative, this is, when you think of it, profoundly subversive. Saying a monarch other than the present one if unthinkable is, in effect, saying that the continuation of monarchy is unthinkable.'
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
It's a pretty clear sign that the place requires reform.
Yes, reform by abolition.
And this follows on from our realisation and discussion ofd the monarchy promising to defend two radically different Christian denominations at once (even if they are not currently at war with each other):
'In 1953, I suspect the Queen herself would have said that being head of the Church of England was the most important of her duties. Now the idea of a state church seems peculiar — most vicars would give you a blank look if you point out that parliament has not sanctioned the prayer book used in most churches.'
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
'The historian Peter Hennessy recently wrote that his generation (he is more or the less the same age as the King) found it hard to imagine any monarch other than Elizabeth II. Like many remarks that sound conservative, this is, when you think of it, profoundly subversive. Saying a monarch other than the present one if unthinkable is, in effect, saying that the continuation of monarchy is unthinkable.'
First WhatsApp message from my family members after the death was announced was along the lines of “not sure I’m ready for a king”. I think that’s going to be a challenge for Charles.
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
It's a pretty clear sign that the place requires reform.
Yes, reform by abolition.
And this follows on from our realisation and discussion ofd the monarchy promising to defend two radically different Christian denominations at once (even if they are not currently at war with each other):
'In 1953, I suspect the Queen herself would have said that being head of the Church of England was the most important of her duties. Now the idea of a state church seems peculiar — most vicars would give you a blank look if you point out that parliament has not sanctioned the prayer book used in most churches.'
Since that's been true since at least 1928, I'm not sure what your point is.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
'The historian Peter Hennessy recently wrote that his generation (he is more or the less the same age as the King) found it hard to imagine any monarch other than Elizabeth II. Like many remarks that sound conservative, this is, when you think of it, profoundly subversive. Saying a monarch other than the present one if unthinkable is, in effect, saying that the continuation of monarchy is unthinkable.'
First WhatsApp message from my family members after the death was announced was along the lines of “not sure I’m ready for a king”. I think that’s going to be a challenge for Charles.
Rather surprising in more than one sense, isn't it, that reaction?
Chinese delegation barred from viewing Queen Elizabeth’s coffin in parliament. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle “it was inappropriate for Zheng to meet on the Commons estate and in our place of work when his country has imposed sanctions against some of our members.”
Should the Speaker be causing diplomatic spats in this manner ? Had he showed a bit more concern over Commons rights with regard to the executive, I might be be more impressed. To my mind, this is pointless grandstanding by someone who doesn't have to deal with the consequences.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
It's a pretty clear sign that the place requires reform.
Yes, reform by abolition.
And this follows on from our realisation and discussion ofd the monarchy promising to defend two radically different Christian denominations at once (even if they are not currently at war with each other):
'In 1953, I suspect the Queen herself would have said that being head of the Church of England was the most important of her duties. Now the idea of a state church seems peculiar — most vicars would give you a blank look if you point out that parliament has not sanctioned the prayer book used in most churches.'
Since that's been true since at least 1928, I'm not sure what your point is.
Just that the nominal constitution and reality have been drifting apart - for quite a time, as indeed your comment shows.
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
Are there any reports of people trying to cut in the queue at points? I'm hearing none but that is surprising isn't it? I guess the other queue-ers wouldn't countenance it?
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
Are there any reports of people trying to cut in the queue at points? I'm hearing none but that is surprising isn't it? I guess the other queue-ers wouldn't countenance it?
You have to get a wrist band that gives you a time at Westminster, so it's not a proper queue.
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
Are there any reports of people trying to cut in the queue at points? I'm hearing none but that is surprising isn't it? I guess the other queue-ers wouldn't countenance it?
You have to get a wrist band that gives you a time at Westminster, so it's not a proper queue.
Oh I see. Thanks. Didn't know that. So you have to report at Westminster for the band and the make your way to the end of the line?
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
Are there any reports of people trying to cut in the queue at points? I'm hearing none but that is surprising isn't it? I guess the other queue-ers wouldn't countenance it?
You have to get a wrist band that gives you a time at Westminster, so it's not a proper queue.
You don’t get the wrist band until you get to the London Eye so there’s several miles of queue where cutting in would be possible - but I suspect the queue is largely policing itself. While Brits are in general tolerant, queue jumping has a low trigger threshold.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
I’m pretty sure that Blair would take a peerage if it were offered, as would Cameron. It may be that Major’s refusal is blocking the process.
You could, for example, have made the same comment about all living PMs except Home (who had already been a peer) from 1979 to 1984. Macmillan was then made Earl of Stockton and he was swiftly joined by Callaghan and Wilson.
Churchill also refused at least one offer of a peerage, as did the Chamberlains.
It is to do with the reporting disclosures that members of the Lords have to publish that is stopping the ex PMs joining the Lords.
They would have to declare every penny they earn.
Not happening. Lady Thatcher could well be our last PM to go to the Lords.
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
Are there any reports of people trying to cut in the queue at points? I'm hearing none but that is surprising isn't it? I guess the other queue-ers wouldn't countenance it?
You have to get a wrist band that gives you a time at Westminster, so it's not a proper queue.
You don’t get the wrist band until you get to the London Eye so there’s several miles of queue where cutting in would be possible - but I suspect the queue is largely policing itself. While Brits are in general tolerant, queue jumping has a low trigger threshold.
I thought I saw on Sky News that people were getting wrist bands at Tower Bridge - when the queue wasn't really reaching that far (i.e. you go there, get your wristband, then walk to the end of the queue).
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
I’m pretty sure that Blair would take a peerage if it were offered, as would Cameron. It may be that Major’s refusal is blocking the process.
You could, for example, have made the same comment about all living PMs except Home (who had already been a peer) from 1979 to 1984. Macmillan was then made Earl of Stockton and he was swiftly joined by Callaghan and Wilson.
Churchill also refused at least one offer of a peerage, as did the Chamberlains.
It is to do with the reporting disclosures that members of the Lords have to publish that is stopping the ex PMs joining the Lords.
They would have to declare every penny they earn.
Not happening. Lady Thatcher could well be our last PM to go to the Lords.
Don't you have to declare that in the Commons too? Yet Major, Brown and May all had extended tenures there.
Hague also accepted a peerage and he must be earning millions one way and another.
I don't think it's quite the barrier you assume it to be.
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
Are there any reports of people trying to cut in the queue at points? I'm hearing none but that is surprising isn't it? I guess the other queue-ers wouldn't countenance it?
You have to get a wrist band that gives you a time at Westminster, so it's not a proper queue.
Oh I see. Thanks. Didn't know that. So you have to report at Westminster for the band and the make your way to the end of the line?
I thought they were handing out wristbands beyond the end of the queue, but I don't actually know for sure. It's just what I thought I saw on Sky News.
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
Are there any reports of people trying to cut in the queue at points? I'm hearing none but that is surprising isn't it? I guess the other queue-ers wouldn't countenance it?
Seems well natured and lots and lots of stewards. The night before the queue reached here there were perhaps already 50 stewards (and a dozen or so police) across 400m of road with zero people queuing - I had assumed overkill but it goes way past me back to Southwark Park now.
I've avoided the coverage, but I was out of curiosity watching the queue live-feed last night for a bit.
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
The queue goes right outside my flat. It is most surreal walking past, especially at night.
Are there any reports of people trying to cut in the queue at points? I'm hearing none but that is surprising isn't it? I guess the other queue-ers wouldn't countenance it?
You have to get a wrist band that gives you a time at Westminster, so it's not a proper queue.
You don’t get the wrist band until you get to the London Eye so there’s several miles of queue where cutting in would be possible - but I suspect the queue is largely policing itself. While Brits are in general tolerant, queue jumping has a low trigger threshold.
I thought I saw on Sky News that people were getting wrist bands at Tower Bridge - when the queue wasn't really reaching that far (i.e. you go there, get your wristband, then walk to the end of the queue).
By 9.32pm, we were standing at the base of the London Eye – and the Houses of Parliament were finally in sight.
This was where things started to slow down.
Half an hour later we had only travelled as far as County Hall – typically a 30-second walk – where we were given wristbands to flash to marshals at checkpoints along the route.
Well done Putin, you have destabilised the entire Caucasus, damaged your allies in Kazakhstan and Belorussia beyond repair, destroyed your army and wrecked your economy by fighting a war you didn't need to fight for reasons even you don't seem able to articulate.
I fear Cyclefree's threads are getting a tad predictable .
If Government policy was less controversial @Cyclefree would have no reason to write critical headers. I suspect she would be more than content to sing the praises of a calm, consistent joined up Government.
Not much hope of that with Truss, Braverman and JRM running the circus.
I'd be delighted to write thread headers about different aspects of gardening, interesting books I've read and so on.
But OGH might have something to say about that.
Anyway I hope some of you might read Julian Barnes' essay because it is very good indeed.
I am more than content with your critique of Government. I was merely responding to 'Root's Lord Astor post.
I do think however if you are a republican support for the monarchy being concentrated on white people is a good thing. Demographic change means support for the monarchy will inevitably drain away
I think all ethnic groups were well represented in the Queue - probably not much different to their ratio in the UK.
Oh sure there were some there but nowhere near the proportion you would expect. Bear in mind the latest census will show the uk no more than 80% white british at best..london likely less than 40% white british
Not sure if you can tell a Pole from a Brit. Of any colour, can you?
Mmm but london at best now 50% white of any background. Dont think we saw anything near a 50 50 mix either outside Buckingham Palace or in that queue
Why do you keep banging on about white people? Are you some sort of racist? Or just another troll who will be gone in an hour or two?
Because if you support the monarchy the lack of support of the institution from ethnic minorities will become a problem 10 to 20 years down the line
I am not a monarchist. I regret the late Queen's passing but I do not really care about the institution of the monarchy. But as far as I can tell, those who do support the monarchy seem to come from all sectors of society.
Do you have good statistical information that things are otherwise? Or are your stats gleaned from counting people on TV?
This claims 37/33 split in favour of the monarchy amongst ethnic minorities. If that is true, its not going to tip the balance of support given the strong support elsewhere, and shows at worst division rather than hostility.
Yes but as the proportion of ethnic minorities grows it will only need a small slip in the popularity of the monarchy for things to change. Stats also dont show intensity of feeling. The lack of ethnic minorities outside Buckingham Palace speaks for itself
I don't think it is correct to make 'assumptions' that non white people are opposed to monarchy; and that this will continue indefinitely long in to the future. It goes down to a question of whether or not the monarchy is able to respond well to a multi racial society, which is an unknown.
There is a valid question though; about how much people understand the racial make up of the UK will change if the current patterns of migration continue, and what the political consequences of this will be.
I think the evidence of assimilation to British traditions over the generations is pretty clear.
There may well be a time when the Monarchy is deposed, but it will be from wider changes in society, and probably would only take place if there were a completely unsuitable heir.
For most of us, royalty will just be a quaint but irrelevant bit of national background, mostly of interest to readers of the sidebar of shame.
I used to share your ambivalence towards the monarchy, but I think that its ceremonial role has deep constitutional significance and shouldn't be underestimated. It is what makes the British system different from other monarchies.
Its cultural significance will probably fade following the death of the queen, which will be a challenge. Another question is how it will ultimately fare in the 'woke' era.
I think the monarchy has no real constitutional significance in practice.
If a monarch actually intervened politically in anything of consequence they would be out the door very quickly. They are just performing poodles, adding to the spectacle, and entertainment of the nation.
Chinese delegation barred from viewing Queen Elizabeth’s coffin in parliament. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle “it was inappropriate for Zheng to meet on the Commons estate and in our place of work when his country has imposed sanctions against some of our members.”
How the heroes of ones youth may fall: Johnny Rotten complaining that the release of the Sex Pistols´classic "God Save the Queen" by other members of the band was "tasteless"...
Wasn`t being tasteless at least a major part of the point of Punk?
I guess I missed it when Rat Scabies et al started dressing in Laura Ashley chintz and having Hyacinth Bouquet candlelit suppers.
As a general rule rock stars opinions age very badly over the decades. Lydon and Morrisey etc are following in the well trodden path of Clapton, Daltrey and Waters. Where once Lydon encapsulated youthful menace, now he apes right wing shock jock views.
'Encapsulated youthful menace'
Doesn't seem like becoming a rightwing shock jock in views is any worse or better, it's still just a performance some like and some don't, so I can't see where the 'age very badly' comes into it.
Chinese delegation barred from viewing Queen Elizabeth’s coffin in parliament. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle “it was inappropriate for Zheng to meet on the Commons estate and in our place of work when his country has imposed sanctions against some of our members.”
Well done Putin, you have destabilised the entire Caucasus, damaged your allies in Kazakhstan and Belorussia beyond repair, destroyed your army and wrecked your economy by fighting a war you didn't need to fight for reasons even you don't seem able to articulate.
Incredible. What a fool.
Probably pocketed a fair chunk of oil and gas profits though.
Well done Putin, you have destabilised the entire Caucasus, damaged your allies in Kazakhstan and Belorussia beyond repair, destroyed your army and wrecked your economy by fighting a war you didn't need to fight for reasons even you don't seem able to articulate.
Incredible. What a fool.
Goid morning
More than that - he is a war criminal responsibile for the deaths of so many innocent men, women and children
He should be in the Hague and imprisoned for life with no parole
Well done Putin, you have destabilised the entire Caucasus, damaged your allies in Kazakhstan and Belorussia beyond repair, destroyed your army and wrecked your economy by fighting a war you didn't need to fight for reasons even you don't seem able to articulate.
Incredible. What a fool.
It’s like the Mafia when the top don is on his way out and all the underlings start kicking off grabbing territory and knocking off rovals because they know that the top has lost their power.
It's not just the banker bonus cap Liz Truss wants to scrap. The EU working time directive is in her sights too. Sunak resisted previous No10 pressure on both (Sources say Johnson planned a 'dump the directive' flourish in his July 'joint event' with Sunak that never happened) https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1570677929952280576
Well done Putin, you have destabilised the entire Caucasus, damaged your allies in Kazakhstan and Belorussia beyond repair, destroyed your army and wrecked your economy by fighting a war you didn't need to fight for reasons even you don't seem able to articulate.
Incredible. What a fool.
I am sure he can articulate his reasons and that they actually have logic to them, but he dare not do so publicly or internationally.
But you think that he would have learned by now, that Soviet/Russian industry and the military have always over-stated their abilities and competences. As a result, the "special expedition" (or whatever he called it) was not going to go as well as planned.
It's not just the banker bonus cap Liz Truss wants to scrap. The EU working time directive is in her sights too. Sunak resisted previous No10 pressure on both (Sources say Johnson planned a 'dump the directive' flourish in his July 'joint event' with Sunak that never happened) https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1570677929952280576
The Conservative approach of Sunak becomes ever more apparent.
4 years jail without trial in the UK. Scandalous and completely unacceptable, not just for the suspect but also the interests of justice as witnesses recollections will be less reliable and accurate 4 years on.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
It's a pretty clear sign that the place requires reform.
Yes, reform by abolition.
And this follows on from our realisation and discussion ofd the monarchy promising to defend two radically different Christian denominations at once (even if they are not currently at war with each other):
'In 1953, I suspect the Queen herself would have said that being head of the Church of England was the most important of her duties. Now the idea of a state church seems peculiar — most vicars would give you a blank look if you point out that parliament has not sanctioned the prayer book used in most churches.'
The more recent authorised liturgies of the CoE none the less have statutory authority, as they are authorised by due process of General Synod, which is itself a body which only exists through the will of parliament. Parliament has delegated this power, but has retained the statutory authority of the BCP of 1662, still widely used.
Since parliament made a complete pigs' ear of the process in 1928 this is probably a decent compromise. And at least the current set up prevents woke church people banning the BCP. Only parliament can do that. And that won't happen while HM CIII is on the throne.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
It's a pretty clear sign that the place requires reform.
Yes, reform by abolition.
I think I'm a reformer by instinct, across a number of subjects. The Lord's, I feel, should be reformed and modernised. The EU is another example of a body I would rather see reformed than abolished. But how do you reform and modernise a monarchy? Ultimately, in my opinion, only through abolition. Everything is just dancing around the farce of a hereditary head of state.
Thematically, I do quite like the idea of removing the royal family and placing a written constitution in its place, a bit like the Guru Granth Sahib. That document will then become our monarch. I admit this is a fringe position but I think a piece of paper can perform the constitutional role pretty well.
Tory MPs have been venting in a big Whatsapp group at how #TheQueue skip system has played out. Some upset staffers can't join them. Nadine Dorries politely told colleagues not to moan over Whatsapp because of "how fast public opinion regarding MPs can form and deteriorate" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1570681670575198210
Yes, really sorry about that. I've said several times that the Defra team under Johnson were very good, better than under previous Labour governments - not just he.lpful to things I favour, but genuinely open-minded and creative. Reserving judgment on the new team.
Yes, really sorry about that. I've said several times that the Defra team under Johnson were very good, better than under previous Labour governments - not just he.lpful to things I favour, but genuinely open-minded and creative. Reserving judgment on the new team.
I think theres a risk of dramatically overstating the electoral effect of this policy. 65% against it but so what? It costs nothing. It no more leads to polling decline than the 80 to 90% in favour of the energy measures have produced a landslide lead. Plus it will be announced amidst a tsunami of support. 'This package is to provide support and boost growth' 'Well lets see how that goes'
Opportunity cost. Now is the time she could be announcing widely popular policies that would close the polling gap.
IF Truss is going to give people their money back, then go big. Don't trim taxes, slash them, so that ordinary folk see it in their wages.
People dont mind others doing well if they are feeling OK about their own finances.
That’s the problem with CT cuts (which nobody really feels) and reversing tax rises that hasn’t yet happened. That plus crumbling public services just isn’t going to cut it.
As others have commented Thatcher had North Sea revenues and privatisation windfalls to play with. Truss has a bare cupboard.
She can borrow us to growth?
There is a kind of consistency and logic in much of the policy agenda. They want us to be like the USA. Poor public infrastructure, high inequality but high growth and entrepreneurial opportunity.
Fair enough, but the UK isn’t the US with the continental scale market and labour force or its own vast energy and agricultural reserves. And the US spends billions upon billions of public money on its own industries.
The US indeed has vast energy reserves, but per capita, I wonder if the UK's are bigger, given that Britain is essentially a lump of coal.
Britain is being made poorer, not by fate but by dogma.
Britain is not a lump of coal, albeit there are substantial coal reserves. And there are some interesting ways to extract energy from those reserves (coal seam methane and in-situ gasification are my favourite).
But traditional deep shaft coal mining in the UK, ain't it.
Coal mining in the UK had largely died out even before carbon taxes and climate change were a factor. Simply: it's a hell of a lot cheaper to mine from big open pits in Colombia than it is to send miners down deep shafts in Colombia.
Let me put this in context for a second. Powder River Basin coal, in the US, can be extracted for less than $15/ton.
There's no way that there's any coal in the UK that can be extracted (even excluding capital costs) for less than $100.
So it would be dogma to choose coal over renewables.
Many years back there was a BBC (I think) documentary where they took an UK coal miner (Yorkshire, I think) round the world to see the coal industry there.
There was a moment when they were in a vast open cast mine in Canada (I think). One of those places where a dump truck the size of a house (literally) rolls up every minute to fill up with coal from a seam 100 foot thick.
With a shaky voice, the ex-coal miner said that one truck carried more coal than a shift from his old mine.
Tory MPs have been venting in a big Whatsapp group at how #TheQueue skip system has played out. Some upset staffers can't join them. Nadine Dorries politely told colleagues not to moan over Whatsapp because of "how fast public opinion regarding MPs can form and deteriorate" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1570681670575198210
I find the idea of bonuses a bit much to be perfectly honest. Call me old-fashioned. You get a good salary to do your job as professionally as possible. Any bonus should only be a tiny bit on top for something that is really going beyond the call of duty, as it were.
If you are the owner of a business then by all means take the rewards of your hard work. But the difficulty with bonuses in banking is this - many started out as partnerships where they were the owners but then turned into corporates for all sorts of sensible reasons. But they kept the partnership mentality - and so bonuses were granted as if bankers are the owners of the business with the risks that go with that. But they're not and the risks have largely been borne by others when things have gone wrong - other employees, shareholders, customers and taxpayers. Bankers have wanted all the advantages of ownership with few, if any, of the downsides.
The cap and other regulatory measures have been attempts to correct that. But really what's needed is to go back to first principles: you're an employee, you get asked to do a professional job in return for a good salary. You do that. You don't get to behave as if you are an entrepreneur with all the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. If you want to do that, off you go and try that.
Sorry, but this thread header is unmitigated shit. The writer appears to be under the illusion that the financial services sector is a net negative and big bang and the deregulation of the 1980s was some sort of mistake. Its risible.
@Cyclefree knows rather more about the dirty of the UK financial services sector than you.
Tory MPs have been venting in a big Whatsapp group at how #TheQueue skip system has played out. Some upset staffers can't join them. Nadine Dorries politely told colleagues not to moan over Whatsapp because of "how fast public opinion regarding MPs can form and deteriorate" https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1570681670575198210
Ms Dorries being very sensible.
A governing party so mad even Nad sounds like the voice of reason is frightening. It's a sign we should buckle up for a very bumpy ride.
Yes, really sorry about that. I've said several times that the Defra team under Johnson were very good, better than under previous Labour governments - not just he.lpful to things I favour, but genuinely open-minded and creative. Reserving judgment on the new team.
I think you are going to be disappointed Nick.
Especially as if it seems that the Animal Welfare Bill is one of those for the chop.
I do think however if you are a republican support for the monarchy being concentrated on white people is a good thing. Demographic change means support for the monarchy will inevitably drain away
I think all ethnic groups were well represented in the Queue - probably not much different to their ratio in the UK.
Oh sure there were some there but nowhere near the proportion you would expect. Bear in mind the latest census will show the uk no more than 80% white british at best..london likely less than 40% white british
Not sure if you can tell a Pole from a Brit. Of any colour, can you?
Mmm but london at best now 50% white of any background. Dont think we saw anything near a 50 50 mix either outside Buckingham Palace or in that queue
Why do you keep banging on about white people? Are you some sort of racist? Or just another troll who will be gone in an hour or two?
Because if you support the monarchy the lack of support of the institution from ethnic minorities will become a problem 10 to 20 years down the line
I am not a monarchist. I regret the late Queen's passing but I do not really care about the institution of the monarchy. But as far as I can tell, those who do support the monarchy seem to come from all sectors of society.
Do you have good statistical information that things are otherwise? Or are your stats gleaned from counting people on TV?
Only 37 % support for monarchy amongst ethnic minorities. Lets face it if you are a black street kid or a muslim in manchester what relevance does the monarchy have for you
If you are a Muslim your first loyalty is to Allah and Muhammad of course
A lot of the historic hostility towards Jews is that they owe their primary allegiance to their co-religionists, rather than their host nation.
Nah it was mainly because they were exempt from Christian laws on usury and restricted in their career choices.
4 years jail without trial in the UK. Scandalous and completely unacceptable, not just for the suspect but also the interests of justice as witnesses recollections will be less reliable and accurate 4 years on.
When Petkovic’s trial did start, on 7 March 2021, its progress was then heavily delayed by the failure of the court’s air conditioning system in heatwave conditions. The trial collapsed in chaos on 27 July and the jury was discharged.
“The prison staff would not attend if the temperature in the court went above 23 degrees,” said Swan, of Stokoe Partnership solicitors.
I know some cases last a long time, but this doesn't sound like one of those.
I find the idea of bonuses a bit much to be perfectly honest. Call me old-fashioned. You get a good salary to do your job as professionally as possible. Any bonus should only be a tiny bit on top for something that is really going beyond the call of duty, as it were.
If you are the owner of a business then by all means take the rewards of your hard work. But the difficulty with bonuses in banking is this - many started out as partnerships where they were the owners but then turned into corporates for all sorts of sensible reasons. But they kept the partnership mentality - and so bonuses were granted as if bankers are the owners of the business with the risks that go with that. But they're not and the risks have largely been borne by others when things have gone wrong - other employees, shareholders, customers and taxpayers. Bankers have wanted all the advantages of ownership with few, if any, of the downsides.
The cap and other regulatory measures have been attempts to correct that. But really what's needed is to go back to first principles: you're an employee, you get asked to do a professional job in return for a good salary. You do that. You don't get to behave as if you are an entrepreneur with all the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. If you want to do that, off you go and try that.
I like bonuses as part of pay packages but think optimal levels are typically around 5%-30% of salary. 300%+ of salary type bonuses are almost begging for employees to take extreme risks, and disregard procedures and the interests of other stakeholders.
I find the idea of bonuses a bit much to be perfectly honest. Call me old-fashioned. You get a good salary to do your job as professionally as possible. Any bonus should only be a tiny bit on top for something that is really going beyond the call of duty, as it were.
If you are the owner of a business then by all means take the rewards of your hard work. But the difficulty with bonuses in banking is this - many started out as partnerships where they were the owners but then turned into corporates for all sorts of sensible reasons. But they kept the partnership mentality - and so bonuses were granted as if bankers are the owners of the business with the risks that go with that. But they're not and the risks have largely been borne by others when things have gone wrong - other employees, shareholders, customers and taxpayers. Bankers have wanted all the advantages of ownership with few, if any, of the downsides.
The cap and other regulatory measures have been attempts to correct that. But really what's needed is to go back to first principles: you're an employee, you get asked to do a professional job in return for a good salary. You do that. You don't get to behave as if you are an entrepreneur with all the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. If you want to do that, off you go and try that.
You're more knowledgeable about these matters than me of course, but looking at the world of finance and indeed large corporations in general I would have said the real problem is our model of corporate governance is simply not working.
It is the job of shareholders to (a) ensure the board are operating correctly (b) that remuneration is set at the right level and (c) that managers and executives are held accountable for their actions.
And that simply isn't happening, largely because major corporations now appear to be mostly owned by other major corporations who all benefit from the lack of proper oversight and therefore want to keep it that way.
I don't have any easy solutions, and I can imagine anything I suggest might cause even more problems than it would solve. For example, giving individual voters the same weight regardless of the size of their shareholding would be an obvious way round it, but that would just make firms incredibly vulnerable to malicious interference. Or saying every bonus had to have the approval of 100% of shareholders before being paid, which would effectively mean none would be paid, but would hobble governance to a very great degree.
But wouldn't there be a case to start with that aspect?
4 years jail without trial in the UK. Scandalous and completely unacceptable, not just for the suspect but also the interests of justice as witnesses recollections will be less reliable and accurate 4 years on.
When Petkovic’s trial did start, on 7 March 2021, its progress was then heavily delayed by the failure of the court’s air conditioning system in heatwave conditions. The trial collapsed in chaos on 27 July and the jury was discharged.
“The prison staff would not attend if the temperature in the court went above 23 degrees,” said Swan, of Stokoe Partnership solicitors.
I know some cases last a long time, but this doesn't sound like one of those.
This isi also startling:
"At the time, the custody time limit – the amount of time that someone can be held on remand – was six months. That was extended in September 2020 to eight months because of the pressures on the system from Covid.
However, cases such as Petkovic’s, where a trial has started but collapsed for whatever reason, are not covered by any custody limits, and his file was pushed to the back of a long queue,"
I find the idea of bonuses a bit much to be perfectly honest. Call me old-fashioned. You get a good salary to do your job as professionally as possible. Any bonus should only be a tiny bit on top for something that is really going beyond the call of duty, as it were.
If you are the owner of a business then by all means take the rewards of your hard work. But the difficulty with bonuses in banking is this - many started out as partnerships where they were the owners but then turned into corporates for all sorts of sensible reasons. But they kept the partnership mentality - and so bonuses were granted as if bankers are the owners of the business with the risks that go with that. But they're not and the risks have largely been borne by others when things have gone wrong - other employees, shareholders, customers and taxpayers. Bankers have wanted all the advantages of ownership with few, if any, of the downsides.
The cap and other regulatory measures have been attempts to correct that. But really what's needed is to go back to first principles: you're an employee, you get asked to do a professional job in return for a good salary. You do that. You don't get to behave as if you are an entrepreneur with all the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. If you want to do that, off you go and try that.
I always remember reading Liars Poker. On no account were you ever to express pleasure about your bonus, however generous. Instead, the rule was to express disgust, disappointment, describing it as an insult, and strongly implying you'd be looking for another job.
4 years jail without trial in the UK. Scandalous and completely unacceptable, not just for the suspect but also the interests of justice as witnesses recollections will be less reliable and accurate 4 years on.
When Petkovic’s trial did start, on 7 March 2021, its progress was then heavily delayed by the failure of the court’s air conditioning system in heatwave conditions. The trial collapsed in chaos on 27 July and the jury was discharged.
“The prison staff would not attend if the temperature in the court went above 23 degrees,” said Swan, of Stokoe Partnership solicitors.
I know some cases last a long time, but this doesn't sound like one of those.
He has been on remand since 2019 and the crown are trying to move back an April 2023 court date. To my mind that is an extremely long time, something we might see in dictatorships elsewhere but not acceptable at all here.
Yes, really sorry about that. I've said several times that the Defra team under Johnson were very good, better than under previous Labour governments - not just he.lpful to things I favour, but genuinely open-minded and creative. Reserving judgment on the new team.
I think you are going to be disappointed Nick.
Especially as if it seems that the Animal Welfare Bill is one of those for the chop.
They're really going for it aren't they. Full on Britannia unchained with a sprinkling of Alan B'stard.
Fair play to them. At least there's a coherent ideology there and a plan to enact it. I am opposed to almost all the policies of the new government but there's a big part of me that prefers this to the bullshitting and lack of direction of the last incumbent.
Over a decade this kind of freewheeling deregulation could do massive and permanent damage to the country, but in the space of 2 years it'll hopefully be limited (and enough to bust a few myths).
4 years jail without trial in the UK. Scandalous and completely unacceptable, not just for the suspect but also the interests of justice as witnesses recollections will be less reliable and accurate 4 years on.
When Petkovic’s trial did start, on 7 March 2021, its progress was then heavily delayed by the failure of the court’s air conditioning system in heatwave conditions. The trial collapsed in chaos on 27 July and the jury was discharged.
“The prison staff would not attend if the temperature in the court went above 23 degrees,” said Swan, of Stokoe Partnership solicitors.
I know some cases last a long time, but this doesn't sound like one of those.
He has been on remand since 2019 and the crown are trying to move back an April 2023 court date. To my mind that is an extremely long time, something we might see in dictatorships elsewhere but not acceptable at all here.
It's almost surprising we didn't have a Coronation amnesty to empty the remand (and other) prisons. People will be queuing to go to jail at this rate.
I find the idea of bonuses a bit much to be perfectly honest. Call me old-fashioned. You get a good salary to do your job as professionally as possible. Any bonus should only be a tiny bit on top for something that is really going beyond the call of duty, as it were.
If you are the owner of a business then by all means take the rewards of your hard work. But the difficulty with bonuses in banking is this - many started out as partnerships where they were the owners but then turned into corporates for all sorts of sensible reasons. But they kept the partnership mentality - and so bonuses were granted as if bankers are the owners of the business with the risks that go with that. But they're not and the risks have largely been borne by others when things have gone wrong - other employees, shareholders, customers and taxpayers. Bankers have wanted all the advantages of ownership with few, if any, of the downsides.
The cap and other regulatory measures have been attempts to correct that. But really what's needed is to go back to first principles: you're an employee, you get asked to do a professional job in return for a good salary. You do that. You don't get to behave as if you are an entrepreneur with all the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. If you want to do that, off you go and try that.
I like bonuses as part of pay packages but think optimal levels are typically around 5%-30% of salary. 300%+ of salary type bonuses are almost begging for employees to take extreme risks, and disregard procedures and the interests of other stakeholders.
IMO a problem with bonuses is short-termism. If they are linked to the company's performance (which they should in any sane world), then they cause management and others to make decisions that make this year look good: even if they know the better thing to do is make a decision that will help the company in the long term.
Perhaps bonuses for management (and options...) should be put in a trust, and released over following years if the performance matches requirements. Including if the employee leaves.
I'd also ban more favourable conditions for board or senior people wrt options. Giving senior people options that vest in a year, whilst lower-level employees get ones that vest in five, is patently unfair and really skews long-term thinking.
Sorry, but this thread header is unmitigated shit. The writer appears to be under the illusion that the financial services sector is a net negative and big bang and the deregulation of the 1980s was some sort of mistake. Its risible.
@Cyclefree knows rather more about the dirty of the UK financial services sector than you.
That superior knowledge would have zero bearing on the point you are replying to.
It's not just the banker bonus cap Liz Truss wants to scrap. The EU working time directive is in her sights too. Sunak resisted previous No10 pressure on both (Sources say Johnson planned a 'dump the directive' flourish in his July 'joint event' with Sunak that never happened) https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1570677929952280576
The WTD is very harmless for all employers other than supremely exploitative ones. If an employee wants the overtime they sign a disclaimer.
It is somewhat ironic that Johnson, one of the most slothful and non-productive workers our nation has ever seen was such a fan of the WTD's abolition. Although being unable to differentiate work from partying like it's 1999 may have been a justification for him to formally extend working hours above 48 per week.
I find the idea of bonuses a bit much to be perfectly honest. Call me old-fashioned. You get a good salary to do your job as professionally as possible. Any bonus should only be a tiny bit on top for something that is really going beyond the call of duty, as it were.
If you are the owner of a business then by all means take the rewards of your hard work. But the difficulty with bonuses in banking is this - many started out as partnerships where they were the owners but then turned into corporates for all sorts of sensible reasons. But they kept the partnership mentality - and so bonuses were granted as if bankers are the owners of the business with the risks that go with that. But they're not and the risks have largely been borne by others when things have gone wrong - other employees, shareholders, customers and taxpayers. Bankers have wanted all the advantages of ownership with few, if any, of the downsides.
The cap and other regulatory measures have been attempts to correct that. But really what's needed is to go back to first principles: you're an employee, you get asked to do a professional job in return for a good salary. You do that. You don't get to behave as if you are an entrepreneur with all the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. If you want to do that, off you go and try that.
Oh good grief. Bonuses are awful things for staff, designed entirely for the benefit of the employer, not the employee. How can you can possibly have worked around bankers for this long and not understood this?
Bonuses do several things, none of which are in the interests of the vast majority of employees, even at top levels:
- They allow the firm to manage staffing costs in years where the overall firm has performed poorly - They trick people into working long hours, under the illusion that they'll get paid back at the end of the year, which never quite works out - They manage staff retention, since there tends to be some time between bonuses being earned and vested (eg: earned over the calendar year, but paid at end of March following annual reviews, so you can't quit between say July and March or you lose over half an annual bonus - probably more, depending on how long your notice period is - They encourage competitiveness amongst staff as there's generally known to be a limited "bonus pool" - They make total comp packages opaque when recruiting, since you won't actually know what you get until you've been in the job a while - By the same token, they make it harder for employees to benchmark compensation, both internally and externally
In short, bonuses are awful. It would be in the interests of all but the top few per cent of performers to just negotiate a fixed salary in advance that was a bit below salary plus target bonus.
Richard Vinen - always an interesting read (he once described the post-Thatcher Tory Party as being like a “deranged seance”) on how the late Queen has weakened the monarchy:
This line, though peripheral, is something I was dimly aware of but had not considered:-
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
I’m pretty sure that Blair would take a peerage if it were offered, as would Cameron. It may be that Major’s refusal is blocking the process.
You could, for example, have made the same comment about all living PMs except Home (who had already been a peer) from 1979 to 1984. Macmillan was then made Earl of Stockton and he was swiftly joined by Callaghan and Wilson.
Churchill also refused at least one offer of a peerage, as did the Chamberlains.
Blair didn’t like the financial disclosure requirements. Cameron would take one now that he’s no chance of making serious money
If you are a Muslim your first loyalty is to Allah and Muhammad of course
A lot of the historic hostility towards Jews is that they owe their primary allegiance to their co-religionists, rather than their host nation.
"...is a perception that...", rather. I don't think it's actually true in most cases, and an unfortunate generalisation that has caused a lot of grief. As someone who is neither very patriotic nor at all religious, I'm ill-suited to comment, but my impression is that most Jews, Muslims and Christians feel their primary loyalty is to their families, with religion and nationality usually some way down the list.
Oh oh! The Queen's dying has got my little one thinking - we are on to the age, and I think underpinning that the residual life expectancy, of Santa this morning.
Christmas puddings and mince pies are back on the shelves already.
And - most welcome of all - the tubs of mini Twiglets which are so much nicer than the longer ones for some reason. Usually not seen until late October.
Comments
If a monarch actually intervened politically in anything of consequence they would be out the door very quickly. They are just performing poodles, adding to the spectacle, and entertainment of the nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Butler_(psephologist)
@MichaelLCrick
Sir David Butler, the father of psephology, who’ll be 98 next month, remembers as a small boy, his great-grandmother Alice telling him how she and her sister, as young girls, watched the Duke of Wellington’s state funeral procession in 1852. They had grandstand seats.
The seats, for a grandstand near Marble Arch, had cost ten shillings each (about £50 now). But Alice’s stepmother complained they were an extravagance. “No, my dear. Not extravagance,” her father reportedly replied. “It’s something they will remember all their lives.”
“And I have, David, haven’t I?” his great-grandmother remarked to the young David Butler, 80 or so years after the great funeral of the duke who won the Battle of Waterloo. And for the next 90 years or so Butler has been telling this story too.
Is there any person still alive other than Sir David Butler who has heard a first-hand account from an eyewitness to the funeral procession of the Duke of Wellington?
Also, Sir David boasts that his father was born in 1878, before the invention of the internal combustion engine; his paternal grandfather in 1831, before the Great Reform Act; and his Butler great-grandfather in 1774, before the American Declaration of Independence. Beat that!
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/1570126922784608256
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wagner-group-tells-recruits-dont-have-sex-with-locals-or-livestock-68rp58pbc
As for the House of Lords, it is now, for the most part, an assembly of retired, middle-ranking politicians — not a single one of the six surviving former prime ministers has bothered to take a peerage.
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/06/15/if-uniform-national-swing-uns-applies-then-the-tories-will-make-it-three-by-election-wins-out-of-three/
I think David has actually written a PB header.
https://mobile.twitter.com/MattCartoonist/status/1570452461839581186/photo/1
Morrisey's always been a total idiot.
Chinese delegation barred from viewing Queen Elizabeth’s coffin in parliament. Speaker Lindsay Hoyle “it was inappropriate for Zheng to meet on the Commons estate and in our place of work when his country has imposed sanctions against some of our members.”
https://twitter.com/MPIainDS/status/1570644342364340224
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity#/media/File:20201019_Levelized_Cost_of_Energy_(LCOE,_Lazard)_-_renewable_energy.svg
So it would be dogma to choose coal over renewables.
You should hear what the Welsh say about us.
Good Week/Bad Week Index
Con +71
LDm +8
Lab +6
Grn -5
Adjusted Seat Value
Con +1.2
LDm +0.1
Lab +0.1
Grn -0.1
For all the talk about centuries of continuity, I doubt if any realistic observer is sure the monarchy will survive for another 70 years. If it is to do so, it needs to get away from an emphasis on the supposed personal qualities of any individual King or Queen and rest once again on the abstract quality of the Crown. Perhaps one day historians will recognise that the most important constitutional commentator of the period was not Sir Simon Schama or Lord Hennessy but Johnny Rotten, who marked the Silver Jubilee of 1977 with the words: “She ain’t no human being.”
You could, for example, have made the same comment about all living PMs except Home (who had already been a peer) from 1979 to 1984. Macmillan was then made Earl of Stockton and he was swiftly joined by Callaghan and Wilson.
Churchill also refused at least one offer of a peerage, as did the Chamberlains.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/15/coffey-urges-staff-to-be-positive-be-precise-and-not-use-oxford-commas?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
'The historian Peter Hennessy recently wrote that his generation (he is more or the less the same age as the King) found it hard to imagine any monarch other than Elizabeth II. Like many remarks that sound conservative, this is, when you think of it, profoundly subversive. Saying a monarch other than the present one if unthinkable is, in effect, saying that the continuation of monarchy is unthinkable.'
'In 1953, I suspect the Queen herself would have said that being head of the Church of England was the most important of her duties. Now the idea of a state church seems peculiar — most vicars would give you a blank look if you point out that parliament has not sanctioned the prayer book used in most churches.'
I wondered about the motivations of the people who are prepared to queue for so long. It's a pilgrimage of sorts isn't it; one I wouldn't make as I'm not interested enough.
Even for cynics the dignity and sombreness of the occasion and the decorum and dedication of the queue-ers - and the organisation and regality of it all - cannot fail to impress. I saw the guards change twice whilst I watched.
And it is, of course, being viewed worldwide. Our image abroad and the popularity of the monarchy is even more assured I think.
Had he showed a bit more concern over Commons rights with regard to the executive, I might be be more impressed.
To my mind, this is pointless grandstanding by someone who doesn't have to deal with the consequences.
They would have to declare every penny they earn.
Not happening. Lady Thatcher could well be our last PM to go to the Lords.
Hague also accepted a peerage and he must be earning millions one way and another.
I don't think it's quite the barrier you assume it to be.
12 hours after these heads of state meet with Putin, Kyrgystan begins shelling Tajikistan.
Putin's weakness is no longer a secret. Everyone will likely take what they can.
https://twitter.com/JayinKyiv/status/1570628733375221760
This was where things started to slow down.
Half an hour later we had only travelled as far as County Hall – typically a 30-second walk – where we were given wristbands to flash to marshals at checkpoints along the route.
https://uk.style.yahoo.com/style/queen-queue-how-long-lying-state-coffin-london-135943716.html
Incredible. What a fool.
Doesn't seem like becoming a rightwing shock jock in views is any worse or better, it's still just a performance some like and some don't, so I can't see where the 'age very badly' comes into it.
08.22am watching the police boat outside #HousesOfParliament #PalaceOfWestminster … nearly 9 hours in the #QueueForTheQueen https://twitter.com/ZoraSuleman/status/1570674896715534342/video/1
Q: How many people who voted Brexit in 2016 or Tory (for the 1st time) in 2019 really thought they were voting to increase banker bonuses?
A: Not many.
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/letting-banker-bonuses-rip-lays-bare-how-desperate-liz-truss-is-to-show-the-benefits-of-brexit-1859017
More than that - he is a war criminal responsibile for the deaths of so many innocent men, women and children
He should be in the Hague and imprisoned for life with no parole
The EU working time directive is in her sights too.
Sunak resisted previous No10 pressure on both (Sources say Johnson planned a 'dump the directive' flourish in his July 'joint event' with Sunak that never happened)
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1570677929952280576
But you think that he would have learned by now, that Soviet/Russian industry and the military have always over-stated their abilities and competences. As a result, the "special expedition" (or whatever he called it) was not going to go as well as planned.
So fucking is a like a kebab. When it's good, it's really good and when I'm drunk I'll pay for it at the side of the road.
vs
"On the building site there were some tools, Boris and Therese."
Sometimes and Oxford comma is important.
https://twitter.com/Kit_Yates_Maths/status/1570661588830658561
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/15/delays-leave-man-facing-four-years-in-leicester-jail-without-trial
Since parliament made a complete pigs' ear of the process in 1928 this is probably a decent compromise. And at least the current set up prevents woke church people banning the BCP. Only parliament can do that. And that won't happen while HM CIII is on the throne.
Thematically, I do quite like the idea of removing the royal family and placing a written constitution in its place, a bit like the Guru Granth Sahib. That document will then become our monarch. I admit this is a fringe position but I think a piece of paper can perform the constitutional role pretty well.
Against the euro, the pound has fallen to its weakest since early 2021 👇 https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1570679494155042819/photo/1
https://twitter.com/hoffman_noa/status/1570681670575198210
6 months worth of rain fell in an afternoon.
There was a moment when they were in a vast open cast mine in Canada (I think). One of those places where a dump truck the size of a house (literally) rolls up every minute to fill up with coal from a seam 100 foot thick.
With a shaky voice, the ex-coal miner said that one truck carried more coal than a shift from his old mine.
If you are the owner of a business then by all means take the rewards of your hard work. But the difficulty with bonuses in banking is this - many started out as partnerships where they were the owners but then turned into corporates for all sorts of sensible reasons. But they kept the partnership mentality - and so bonuses were granted as if bankers are the owners of the business with the risks that go with that. But they're not and the risks have largely been borne by others when things have gone wrong - other employees, shareholders, customers and taxpayers. Bankers have wanted all the advantages of ownership with few, if any, of the downsides.
The cap and other regulatory measures have been attempts to correct that. But really what's needed is to go back to first principles: you're an employee, you get asked to do a professional job in return for a good salary. You do that. You don't get to behave as if you are an entrepreneur with all the risks and rewards of entrepreneurship. If you want to do that, off you go and try that.
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1570670406734090240
(Video of Ukrainians 'rowing' a Norwegian ?SPG?)
Everyone has always hated bankers
When Petkovic’s trial did start, on 7 March 2021, its progress was then heavily delayed by the failure of the court’s air conditioning system in heatwave conditions. The trial collapsed in chaos on 27 July and the jury was discharged.
“The prison staff would not attend if the temperature in the court went above 23 degrees,” said Swan, of Stokoe Partnership solicitors.
I know some cases last a long time, but this doesn't sound like one of those.
It is the job of shareholders to (a) ensure the board are operating correctly (b) that remuneration is set at the right level and (c) that managers and executives are held accountable for their actions.
And that simply isn't happening, largely because major corporations now appear to be mostly owned by other major corporations who all benefit from the lack of proper oversight and therefore want to keep it that way.
I don't have any easy solutions, and I can imagine anything I suggest might cause even more problems than it would solve. For example, giving individual voters the same weight regardless of the size of their shareholding would be an obvious way round it, but that would just make firms incredibly vulnerable to malicious interference. Or saying every bonus had to have the approval of 100% of shareholders before being paid, which would effectively mean none would be paid, but would hobble governance to a very great degree.
But wouldn't there be a case to start with that aspect?
"At the time, the custody time limit – the amount of time that someone can be held on remand – was six months. That was extended in September 2020 to eight months because of the pressures on the system from Covid.
However, cases such as Petkovic’s, where a trial has started but collapsed for whatever reason, are not covered by any custody limits, and his file was pushed to the back of a long queue,"
Fair play to them. At least there's a coherent ideology there and a plan to enact it. I am opposed to almost all the policies of the new government but there's a big part of me that prefers this to the bullshitting and lack of direction of the last incumbent.
Over a decade this kind of freewheeling deregulation could do massive and permanent damage to the country, but in the space of 2 years it'll hopefully be limited (and enough to bust a few myths).
Perhaps bonuses for management (and options...) should be put in a trust, and released over following years if the performance matches requirements. Including if the employee leaves.
I'd also ban more favourable conditions for board or senior people wrt options. Giving senior people options that vest in a year, whilst lower-level employees get ones that vest in five, is patently unfair and really skews long-term thinking.
It is somewhat ironic that Johnson, one of the most slothful and non-productive workers our nation has ever seen was such a fan of the WTD's abolition. Although being unable to differentiate work from partying like it's 1999 may have been a justification for him to formally extend working hours above 48 per week.
Bonuses do several things, none of which are in the interests of the vast majority of employees, even at top levels:
- They allow the firm to manage staffing costs in years where the overall firm has performed poorly
- They trick people into working long hours, under the illusion that they'll get paid back at the end of the year, which never quite works out
- They manage staff retention, since there tends to be some time between bonuses being earned and vested (eg: earned over the calendar year, but paid at end of March following annual reviews, so you can't quit between say July and March or you lose over half an annual bonus - probably more, depending on how long your notice period is
- They encourage competitiveness amongst staff as there's generally known to be a limited "bonus pool"
- They make total comp packages opaque when recruiting, since you won't actually know what you get until you've been in the job a while
- By the same token, they make it harder for employees to benchmark compensation, both internally and externally
In short, bonuses are awful. It would be in the interests of all but the top few per cent of performers to just negotiate a fixed salary in advance that was a bit below salary plus target bonus.