Howdy, Stranger!

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

Some harsh realities on the Monarchy from Prof John Curtice – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited September 16 in General
imageSome harsh realities on the Monarchy from Prof John Curtice – politicalbetting.com

The leading political scientist and polling expert, Prof John Curtice, has a great piece behind a PayWall in the New Statesman on how the public now views the monarchy.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,179
    First in line to da throne
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,149
    President Beckham.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,448
    edited September 16
    Second. I'll succeed Ishmael.
    It's George III and the Prince Regent over again.
  • President Mike.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,166
    edited September 16
    President Boris Johnson with executive powers, directly elected by FPTP or AV.

    President Tony Blair with ceremonial powers.

    Another King John or Edward IV or James II, recipes for disaster. for monarchy.

  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,179
    It's a notable thing about pb how republicanism is evenly spread across the political including leave/remain divides, fervent monarchism being confined to outright nutters and Kate n Meg pervs. The reason being that anyone who thinks seriously about politics from any angle knows that there's no justification for it.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 78,847
    'Harsh reality' is a bit extreme. As the header notes its still much preferred, albeit there is an obvious challenge.
  • FPT:

    thart said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:



    thart said:

    Is the Harry & Megs hayterz situation another of those not all Xers are racists but all racists are Xers things?

    i remember at my school we used to make monkey sounds when black students walked by the classroom.....it was all in good fun of course and even the black students laughed along....wasnt that long ago either
    Your anecdote doesn't surprise me at all. Overt racism and defensive laughter were quite common in my youth too.
    You weren’t a very nice youth, then
    Racist banter and jokes were certainly normal then. I am not proud of some of the jokes I made then, but certainly wouldn't make them now.
    It was the same in Hereford, for me, age 10

    I remember when Hereford United played West Ham in the FA Cup - they were several divisions above us and it was all very exciting. The Hammers had a couple of black players. Black people were a total rarity in Herefordshire then, I don’t think I ever saw one before the 80s

    Us Hereford fans thought it incredibly amusing to do monkey chants and hurl bananas whenever the black players touched the ball

    It makes me cringe with shame just to write that

    I don’t think it was pure racism. It was just another way of mocking and insulting the opposing players, with extra motifs of racism. I doubt people in Hereford thought about “race” from one day to the next. Everyone was white, that was life

    i went back to Hereford a couple of years ago and was astonished to see quite a few black people, apparently happily assimilated, drinking in loud exuberant mixed race groups in the pubs I used to frequent, Not a hint of racism or even awareness of any difference
    Hereford is Ellie Goulding and misery in layers. Or so I am told, herefordshire is one of only 2 counties of England ive hever been to
    Imagine Norfolk but with considerably more inbreeding.
    only 2 counties ive never been to are Herefordshire and Norfolk
    Been to every county in England, Wales and Scotland. It may be that there is no place in Great Britain more than 20 miles from where I have visited.

    Twitching rare birds will do that.
    I *think* my railway adventures have taken me to every county in England.
    Have you done the 4 heritage lines in Norfolk?
    No, but I popped over to have a look at the North Norfolk's Sheringham station when I did the National Rail network's Sheringham branch. Also alighted at Norwich, Kings Lynn, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,637
    They are a little volatile, suggesting many people don't care strongly either way.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    Not remotely close even with cherry picked polling. Republic is a long way off
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
  • President Beckham.

    Vic or Dave?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,637
    edited September 16

    Not remotely close even with cherry picked polling. Republic is a long way off

    Are you accusing Mike Smithson of cherry-picking the figures. (edit: or John Curtice.)
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144
    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,637
    Not too many countries become republics outside times of invasion or political violence, and in the modern era they go back to monarchies so infrequently that it's not worth characterising them. So the changes in underlying opinion must be extremely slow, or alternatively it's like language and most people don't change or care.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    edited September 16
    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    But in that case what's the point of the monarchy at all? Only HYUFD would say we have tro accept the complete tosser because he has divine right and the correct, if imaginary, blood from William the Bastard. Yet the argument carries over to all the others, tossers or not.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,448
    edited September 16
    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    This is a very astute observation.
    Almost everyone has some kind of complaint about the past few days (even if it is only ASDA being closed), when you talk to them. Even if the vast majority don't see the necessity for any kind of change right now.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,717
    Evening all :)

    Back from dinner with Mrs Stodge and saw a good number getting off the Jubilee Line tube at Bermondsey ready to brave a long and chilly night. I did the whole religious angle earlier so won't repeat it.

    As I've said before, my view on the Monarchy echoes Churchill's on democracy. That said, the Monarchy can and must never take our "support" for granted. Their task is to remain relevant to a changing society (how very woke of me, I expect) and not become an anachronistic reminder of what was.

    In addition, the "Firm" (like all other organisations) has to ensure it is run as efficiently and effectively as possible. That means looking at costs and looking at what the members of the Royal Family do in terms of duties, obligations and responsibilities. I have no doubt for example the likes of the Princess Royal and the Duke and Duchess of Wessex work tirelessly and don't always get the recognition they deserve for covering the vast range of Royal "events" which are often much less than the pomp and circumstance of current times;

    There will be those who, not unreasonably, question some of the expansive property and land portfolio and ask whether all of it is really required and it may well be we'll see further reductions in the Estate going forward.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,085
    dr_spyn said:

    President Boris Johnson with executive powers, directly elected by FPTP or AV.

    President Tony Blair with ceremonial powers.

    Another King John or Edward IV or James II, recipes for disaster. for monarchy.

    Was Edward IV that bad?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    edited September 16

    FPT:

    thart said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:

    Leon said:

    Foxy said:



    thart said:

    Is the Harry & Megs hayterz situation another of those not all Xers are racists but all racists are Xers things?

    i remember at my school we used to make monkey sounds when black students walked by the classroom.....it was all in good fun of course and even the black students laughed along....wasnt that long ago either
    Your anecdote doesn't surprise me at all. Overt racism and defensive laughter were quite common in my youth too.
    You weren’t a very nice youth, then
    Racist banter and jokes were certainly normal then. I am not proud of some of the jokes I made then, but certainly wouldn't make them now.
    It was the same in Hereford, for me, age 10

    I remember when Hereford United played West Ham in the FA Cup - they were several divisions above us and it was all very exciting. The Hammers had a couple of black players. Black people were a total rarity in Herefordshire then, I don’t think I ever saw one before the 80s

    Us Hereford fans thought it incredibly amusing to do monkey chants and hurl bananas whenever the black players touched the ball

    It makes me cringe with shame just to write that

    I don’t think it was pure racism. It was just another way of mocking and insulting the opposing players, with extra motifs of racism. I doubt people in Hereford thought about “race” from one day to the next. Everyone was white, that was life

    i went back to Hereford a couple of years ago and was astonished to see quite a few black people, apparently happily assimilated, drinking in loud exuberant mixed race groups in the pubs I used to frequent, Not a hint of racism or even awareness of any difference
    Hereford is Ellie Goulding and misery in layers. Or so I am told, herefordshire is one of only 2 counties of England ive hever been to
    Imagine Norfolk but with considerably more inbreeding.
    only 2 counties ive never been to are Herefordshire and Norfolk
    Been to every county in England, Wales and Scotland. It may be that there is no place in Great Britain more than 20 miles from where I have visited.

    Twitching rare birds will do that.
    I *think* my railway adventures have taken me to every county in England.
    Have you done the 4 heritage lines in Norfolk?
    No, but I popped over to have a look at the North Norfolk's Sheringham station when I did the National Rail network's Sheringham branch. Also alighted at Norwich, Kings Lynn, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft.
    'Stoft is Suffolk ;)
    Not sure if it was there when you came but there is now an occasional use level crossing connecting Sheringham mainline to the heritage Poppy line station, part of the Norfolk Orbital Railway project.
    Theres the Mid Norfolk Railway as part of that effort too (Dereham to Wymondham)
    Theres also 2 narrow guages - Wroxham Aylsham (Bure Valley) and Wells Walsingham on the North Coast that are fun
    The orbital would run the current Norwich to Sheringham then the Poppy Line to Holt, with track then needing to be rebuilt to connect through Fakenham back round to Dereham, then the existing mid Norfolk line to Wymondham where it rejoins mainline to Norwich. It coming off looks highly unlikely before 2150!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    FPT on Herefordshire


    Yes, Herefordshire does not have an Ipswich or Felixtowe like Suffolk, nor an Exeter like Devon, or a St Austell or a Camborne or a horrible old mining shithole like places in Northumberland, nor the saunas of Plymouth

    There is not one single horrible town in Herefordshire. Not one. It can be poor or run down but it is always picturesque, there is no industry, there are no high rise buildings, there is no real motorway - which is what Pevsner was driving at, and he is still right

    Aesthetically it is closer to a lost but lovely part of France, like, say, Lozere
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,637
    stodge said:

    Evening all :)

    Back from dinner with Mrs Stodge and saw a good number getting off the Jubilee Line tube at Bermondsey ready to brave a long and chilly night. I did the whole religious angle earlier so won't repeat it.

    As I've said before, my view on the Monarchy echoes Churchill's on democracy. That said, the Monarchy can and must never take our "support" for granted. Their task is to remain relevant to a changing society (how very woke of me, I expect) and not become an anachronistic reminder of what was.

    In addition, the "Firm" (like all other organisations) has to ensure it is run as efficiently and effectively as possible. That means looking at costs and looking at what the members of the Royal Family do in terms of duties, obligations and responsibilities. I have no doubt for example the likes of the Princess Royal and the Duke and Duchess of Wessex work tirelessly and don't always get the recognition they deserve for covering the vast range of Royal "events" which are often much less than the pomp and circumstance of current times;

    There will be those who, not unreasonably, question some of the expansive property and land portfolio and ask whether all of it is really required and it may well be we'll see further reductions in the Estate going forward.

    Like other ultra-rich people, their net worth has multiplied rapidly in the last 15 years, and so I imagine the "work" and "events" or should we say "political activities to preserve untaxed status" will increase with the amount that there is to lose.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144
    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    But in that case what's the point of the monarchy at all? Only HYUFD would say we have tro accept the complete tosser because he has divine right and the correct, if imaginary, blood from William the Bastard. Yet the argument carries over to all the others, tossers or not.
    The point, as I see it, is to avoid having the faff and rigmarole of having to elect a President and the risk they may also be a complete tosser, but one with real power.

    With the royals we have something that just about works and remains a decent source of soft power. But that depends on the monarch being a likeable, and reasonably neutral individual.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,448
    Wigan fell apart tonight. No 24th Championship.
    Just have to console ourselves with the 23 then.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    Charles is a place-holder for William. I can't see any moves to change the system until William has been given a long stint as monarch. If he disappoints maybe we'll see change. But having a king or queen as head of state doesn't actually change anything in our political life, day to day. If the King starts refusing to sign laws into force, then we would have a rethink.
  • We just need a poll showing Nigel Farage would be the favoured choice for a ceremonial Head of State, and then the Guardian -reading classes will discover the merits of the monarchy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Not remotely close even with cherry picked polling. Republic is a long way off

    Yes, this is a bollocks thread

    The monarchy is supported 60/20 with 20 undecided

    Is there any other major political institution in any country with that kind of support, however tepid? (And for many it is not tepid at all, see The Queue)

    For the monarchy to be in trouble you’d need to see these figures reversed, and consistently, for years, because abolishing the monarchy would be such an appalling arse-ache for a start. So much hassle….. and for what? What replaces it? A tedious republic? A figurehead president Gordon Brown? David fucking Attenborough then who?

    insane. Of all the things to worry about - like WORLD WAR 3 - British republicanism is not in the top 10,000
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,085
    IshmaelZ said:

    It's a notable thing about pb how republicanism is evenly spread across the political including leave/remain divides, fervent monarchism being confined to outright nutters and Kate n Meg pervs. The reason being that anyone who thinks seriously about politics from any angle knows that there's no justification for it.

    If it didn't exist you wouldn't introduce it. But there isn't yet any widespread appetite for change. And to what?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    I doubt even then, we survived plenty of tossers like George IVth and Edward VIIIth because we are a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy. Though I can't see Charles, William or George being anywhere near as bad as they were
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    edited September 16
    TimS said:

    Carnyx said:

    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    But in that case what's the point of the monarchy at all? Only HYUFD would say we have tro accept the complete tosser because he has divine right and the correct, if imaginary, blood from William the Bastard. Yet the argument carries over to all the others, tossers or not.
    The point, as I see it, is to avoid having the faff and rigmarole of having to elect a President and the risk they may also be a complete tosser, but one with real power.

    With the royals we have something that just about works and remains a decent source of soft power. But that depends on the monarch being a likeable, and reasonably neutral individual.
    Mm, yes, there's much more conditionality than our right-winger monarchists like to admit. It's dressed up as unthinkable and indeed, in a real sense, heretical by them, but things could change quite fast. The current financial crisis - ordinary foilk versus the billionaires - will be a challenge. Anyway, we will have to see.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513
    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    If we get an individual as monarch so toxic that they threaten the institution as a whole then it's quite likely they will be forced to abdicate, the moment of crisis will pass, and that will be that.

    Advocates of a Republic need to be a bit more proactive than waiting for a monarch to self-destruct.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,149
    I see that the heads of various branches of the hocus pocus brigade had a get together with the king.

    Nobody representing us atheists got an invite.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,448

    IshmaelZ said:

    It's a notable thing about pb how republicanism is evenly spread across the political including leave/remain divides, fervent monarchism being confined to outright nutters and Kate n Meg pervs. The reason being that anyone who thinks seriously about politics from any angle knows that there's no justification for it.

    If it didn't exist you wouldn't introduce it. But there isn't yet any widespread appetite for change. And to what?
    Imagine proposing the House of Lords.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144
    If William and then George are decent monarchs then there’s potentially another 80 or so years to go.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    edited September 16
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    It's a notable thing about pb how republicanism is evenly spread across the political including leave/remain divides, fervent monarchism being confined to outright nutters and Kate n Meg pervs. The reason being that anyone who thinks seriously about politics from any angle knows that there's no justification for it.

    If it didn't exist you wouldn't introduce it. But there isn't yet any widespread appetite for change. And to what?
    Imagine proposing the House of Lords.
    Complete wityh post-mediaeval theocratic elements favouring a single, minority, sect.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829
    edited September 16
    Leon said:

    FPT on Herefordshire


    Yes, Herefordshire does not have an Ipswich or Felixtowe like Suffolk, nor an Exeter like Devon, or a St Austell or a Camborne or a horrible old mining shithole like places in Northumberland, nor the saunas of Plymouth

    There is not one single horrible town in Herefordshire. Not one. It can be poor or run down but it is always picturesque, there is no industry, there are no high rise buildings, there is no real motorway - which is what Pevsner was driving at, and he is still right

    Aesthetically it is closer to a lost but lovely part of France, like, say, Lozere


    As one stands on Worcestershire Beacon looking North across the M5 towards the Vale of Evesham the flat vista is only interrupted by Bredon Hill. Turn around and one is met with undulating magnificence all the way to Hay Bluff.

    Hereford, Leominster, Ledbury and Bromyard are tired. Ross is returning to its majestic splendour. Perhaps the rest will follow.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    edited September 16

    I see that the heads of various branches of the hocus pocus brigade had a get together with the king.

    Nobody representing us atheists got an invite.

    Charles had an audience with the atheist Starmer on Monday
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too
    I think you have got your calendar set to the wrong year. 1985? It's 2022 and we have transatlantic rabid free market liberals in charge of the "conservative" party. So much for tradition and heritage.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144

    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    If we get an individual as monarch so toxic that they threaten the institution as a whole then it's quite likely they will be forced to abdicate, the moment of crisis will pass, and that will be that.

    Advocates of a Republic need to be a bit more proactive than waiting for a monarch to self-
    destruct.
    Thing is republicanism is never going to be a short term project, and today’s republicans probably won’t be the protagonists. If and when it happens it’ll just happen. The country will decide it’s time.

    First though will be the Caribbean. Then Australia and NZ in due course. Canada probably sticks around until the end. But by then Britain will be a very different country anyway.

  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,085
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Cromwellian tradition? Please elaborate. Very few of us are Puritans. And i don't remember him being a lover of freedom.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    edited September 16

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Cromwellian tradition? Please elaborate. Very few of us are Puritans. And i don't remember him being a lover of freedom.
    Parliament against the Crown. Good enough for Mr Churchill to revere him.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,448
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Cromwellian tradition? Please elaborate. Very few of us are Puritans. And i don't remember him being a lover of freedom.
    Parliament against the Crown. Good enough for Mr Churchill to revere him.
    That's all we need right now.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,717
    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    I doubt even then, we survived plenty of tossers like George IVth and Edward VIIIth because we are a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy. Though I can't see Charles, William or George being anywhere near as bad as they were
    Do you not accept however the Monarchy still has to hold itself accountable to the people - not in the democratic sense as per an elected Government - but in the way its members comport themselves and more particularly where the public finances are concerned?

    A lot of land and property is owned by the Crown Estates for example and there may be those who ask whether that property is being properly and effectively used or whether there may be an argument for rationalising the portfolio and returning some of the land and buildings to public ownership and use?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 25,998
    HYUFD said:

    I see that the heads of various branches of the hocus pocus brigade had a get together with the king.

    Nobody representing us atheists got an invite.

    Charles had an audience with the atheist Starmer on Monday
    You're confusing his personal beliefs with the fact that no atheist got called *because* he is an atheist, as opposed to being a member of Henry VIII's private sect.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,149
    HYUFD said:

    I see that the heads of various branches of the hocus pocus brigade had a get together with the king.

    Nobody representing us atheists got an invite.

    Charles had an audience with the atheist Starmer on Monday
    In a political not theological capacity.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,166

    dr_spyn said:

    President Boris Johnson with executive powers, directly elected by FPTP or AV.

    President Tony Blair with ceremonial powers.

    Another King John or Edward IV or James II, recipes for disaster. for monarchy.

    Was Edward IV that bad?
    Failed to secure throne for heir. Though I ought to have added Henry VI as a pious fool was worse, incapable of ruling. Survival of monarchies are vulnerable to the mentally or physically incapable postmodern.

    As for a republic, begs plenty of questions over Presidential power, method of election, length of term, limits of terms, primacy of Parliament v Presidency.


  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513
    Incidentally, had a can of this tonight while drinking with new colleagues, and it's highly recommended if you like a dark beer with a bit of depth of flavour to it.

    http://www.upfrontbrewing.com/shop/volodymyr-100-abv
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144
    edited September 16

    Leon said:

    FPT on Herefordshire


    Yes, Herefordshire does not have an Ipswich or Felixtowe like Suffolk, nor an Exeter like Devon, or a St Austell or a Camborne or a horrible old mining shithole like places in Northumberland, nor the saunas of Plymouth

    There is not one single horrible town in Herefordshire. Not one. It can be poor or run down but it is always picturesque, there is no industry, there are no high rise buildings, there is no real motorway - which is what Pevsner was driving at, and he is still right

    Aesthetically it is closer to a lost but lovely part of France, like, say, Lozere

    “As one stands on Worcestershire Beacon looking North across the M5 towards the Vale of Evesham the flat vista is only interrupted by Bredon Hill. Turn around and one is met with undulating magnificence all the way to Hay Bluff.

    Hereford, Leominster, Ledbury and Bromyard are tired. Ross is returning to its majestic splendour. Perhaps the rest will follow.”


    The Lozère comparison is apt. Or somewhere a big greener and less stark, like Corrèze. It is the Limousin of England.

    I disagree that Hereford or Ledbury are tired (not been to the others recently). Hereford in particular has perked up no end since the 1990s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    edited September 16

    HYUFD said:

    I see that the heads of various branches of the hocus pocus brigade had a get together with the king.

    Nobody representing us atheists got an invite.

    Charles had an audience with the atheist Starmer on Monday
    In a political not theological capacity.
    How do you know? Were you there? There is no grand high priest of atheism anyway, so that is you atheists' fault. We Christians however have many bishops and cardinals the King could meet, as the Muslims have Imams or the Jews have Rabbis
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    I doubt even then, we survived plenty of tossers like George IVth and Edward VIIIth because we are a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy. Though I can't see Charles, William or George being anywhere near as bad as they were
    Do you not accept however the Monarchy still has to hold itself accountable to the people - not in the democratic sense as per an elected Government - but in the way its members comport themselves and more particularly where the public finances are concerned?

    A lot of land and property is owned by the Crown Estates for example and there may be those who ask whether that property is being properly and effectively used or whether there may be an argument for rationalising the portfolio and returning some of the land and buildings to public ownership and use?
    Most Crown Estates revenue already goes to the Treasury or to fund the sovereign grant
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    edited September 16
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    I would do too. In another civil war we could form the royalist front rank against the PB republicans. Happy to lead a cavalry charge against MexicanPete if you command the infantry to hold off Dynamo and Union Divvie
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    if you need a more pragmatic argument for monarchy, look at the list of richest nations/territories

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

    Of the top 20 on that list, 14 out of 20 are monarchies

    Even if you strip away the micro states and colonies, 13 of the top 20 are monarchies

    The republics cluster lower down
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,804
    FPT
    Pulpstar said:

    Tory remainers massively overrepresented lol.

    It's skewed in favour of conservative-minded Londoners.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something
    exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    I don’t think anyone will ever fight over the monarchy. If we get a republic in due course it’ll just happen. Britain will be ready. If we don’t, nobody will care enough to fight for a republic.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,448
    Ken Clarke not confident about the economy on World Tonight.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    I doubt even then, we survived plenty of tossers like George IVth and Edward VIIIth because we are a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy. Though I can't see Charles, William or George being anywhere near as bad as they were
    Do you not accept however the Monarchy still has to hold itself accountable to the people - not in the democratic sense as per an elected Government - but in the way its members comport themselves and more particularly where the public finances are concerned?

    A lot of land and property is owned by the Crown Estates for example and there may be those who ask whether that property is being properly and effectively used or whether there may be an argument for rationalising the portfolio and returning some of the land and buildings to public ownership and use?
    The Crown Estates are “owned” and run by the UK state
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,085
    dixiedean said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    It's a notable thing about pb how republicanism is evenly spread across the political including leave/remain divides, fervent monarchism being confined to outright nutters and Kate n Meg pervs. The reason being that anyone who thinks seriously about politics from any angle knows that there's no justification for it.

    If it didn't exist you wouldn't introduce it. But there isn't yet any widespread appetite for change. And to what?
    Imagine proposing the House of Lords.
    I wouldn't. And choosing an alternative for that should be much simpler and wouldn't be unpopular.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    TimS said:

    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    If we get an individual as monarch so toxic that they threaten the institution as a whole then it's quite likely they will be forced to abdicate, the moment of crisis will pass, and that will be that.

    Advocates of a Republic need to be a bit more proactive than waiting for a monarch to self-
    destruct.
    Thing is republicanism is never going to be a short term project, and today’s republicans probably won’t be the protagonists. If and when it happens it’ll just happen. The country will decide it’s time.

    First though will be the Caribbean. Then Australia and NZ in due course. Canada probably sticks around until the end. But by then Britain will be a very different country anyway.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11205707/The-Queen-Majority-Australia-supports-monarchy-not-republic-King-Charles-III.html

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/11/20/third-of-kiwis-want-nz-republic-47-favour-keeping-monarchy/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something
    exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    I don’t think anyone will ever fight over the monarchy. If we get a republic in due course it’ll just happen. Britain will be ready. If we don’t, nobody will care enough to fight for a republic.
    No, I would fight. The idea of a republic is so abominable, I would fight. I’m not joking

    However you are right that this prospect is so distant the question is not worth asking
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too
    I think you have got your calendar set to the wrong year. 1985? It's 2022 and we have transatlantic rabid free market liberals in charge of the "conservative" party. So much for tradition and heritage.
    And how is that doing for them? Under 30% on the latest poll compared to the 43% Boris got in 2019
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    I would do too. In another civil war we could form the royalist front rank against the PB republicans. Happy to lead a cavalry charge against MexicanPete if you command the infantry to hold off Dynamo and Union Divvie
    I'll only accept the summary execution for my treason if you fire the shot!
  • Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    Like fuck you would. Too old, too fat and too craven. You'd be lodging with Littlejohn and shitting out articles for the King's daily.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    dixiedean said:

    Ken Clarke not confident about the economy on World Tonight.

    Its fucked.
    And that applies anywhere in the West
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 2,793
    The problem the monarchy have is a bit like the ref in football - your best days are the ones where you're mostly in the background not really getting noticed just letting the game flow. And as soon as you start getting fussy and officious everyone boos you.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,149
    Leon said:

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    The sense I’m getting from most people I know is that Charles is on probation, but on balance there’s no appetite for a change of constitution.

    Very few are unambiguously monarchist regardless of the individual. I think the first time we get a complete tosser as monarch we’ll go republic.

    I doubt even then, we survived plenty of tossers like George IVth and Edward VIIIth because we are a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy. Though I can't see Charles, William or George being anywhere near as bad as they were
    Do you not accept however the Monarchy still has to hold itself accountable to the people - not in the democratic sense as per an elected Government - but in the way its members comport themselves and more particularly where the public finances are concerned?

    A lot of land and property is owned by the Crown Estates for example and there may be those who ask whether that property is being properly and effectively used or whether there may be an argument for rationalising the portfolio and returning some of the land and buildings to public ownership and use?
    The Crown Estates are “owned” and run by the UK state
    The king just agreed to hand over the proceeds in exchange for an annual hand out. He could have refused and pocketed the lot.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    Like fuck you would. Too old, too fat and too craven. You'd be lodging with Littlejohn and shitting out articles for the King's daily.
    OK I’d scribble pamphlets and then rise on my gouty knees and take potshots at the proles from my windows, before collapsing back to my tankard of wine. I’d still fight

    I really would, by the way. There are few things that could bestir me to arms, that is one of them. Another is invasion of the UK. Also anyone seriously endangering my children OBVS

    After that it gets hazy. I agree with NATO defending NATO but I would not personally collect a musket to hold off the Russians outside Riga
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something
    exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    I don’t think anyone will ever fight over the monarchy. If we get a republic in due course it’ll just happen. Britain will be ready. If we don’t, nobody will care enough to fight for a republic.
    No, I would fight. The idea of a republic is so abominable, I would fight. I’m not joking

    However you are right that this prospect is so distant the question is not worth asking
    And should the fight be lost, like Jacobites we would raise a secretive glass to the King Over Water and share our hidden signs and sigils, plotting ever the overthrow of the pretenders and glorious Restoration
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on Herefordshire


    Yes, Herefordshire does not have an Ipswich or Felixtowe like Suffolk, nor an Exeter like Devon, or a St Austell or a Camborne or a horrible old mining shithole like places in Northumberland, nor the saunas of Plymouth

    There is not one single horrible town in Herefordshire. Not one. It can be poor or run down but it is always picturesque, there is no industry, there are no high rise buildings, there is no real motorway - which is what Pevsner was driving at, and he is still right

    Aesthetically it is closer to a lost but lovely part of France, like, say, Lozere

    “As one stands on Worcestershire Beacon looking North across the M5 towards the Vale of Evesham the flat vista is only interrupted by Bredon Hill. Turn around and one is met with undulating magnificence all the way to Hay Bluff.

    Hereford, Leominster, Ledbury and Bromyard are tired. Ross is returning to its majestic splendour. Perhaps the rest will follow.”
    The Lozère comparison is apt. Or somewhere a big greener and less stark, like Corrèze. It is the Limousin of England.

    I disagree that Hereford or Ledbury are tired (not been to the others recently). Hereford in particular has perked up no end since the 1990s.


    Looking North from the Beacon? I'm not sure on that one? East perhaps?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,149
    Modi shaking hands with Putin on the news.

    Twat.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on Herefordshire


    Yes, Herefordshire does not have an Ipswich or Felixtowe like Suffolk, nor an Exeter like Devon, or a St Austell or a Camborne or a horrible old mining shithole like places in Northumberland, nor the saunas of Plymouth

    There is not one single horrible town in Herefordshire. Not one. It can be poor or run down but it is always picturesque, there is no industry, there are no high rise buildings, there is no real motorway - which is what Pevsner was driving at, and he is still right

    Aesthetically it is closer to a lost but lovely part of France, like, say, Lozere

    “As one stands on Worcestershire Beacon looking North across the M5 towards the Vale of Evesham the flat vista is only interrupted by Bredon Hill. Turn around and one is met with undulating magnificence all the way to Hay Bluff.

    Hereford, Leominster, Ledbury and Bromyard are tired. Ross is returning to its majestic splendour. Perhaps the rest will follow.”
    The Lozère comparison is apt. Or somewhere a big greener and less stark, like Corrèze. It is the Limousin of England.

    I disagree that Hereford or Ledbury are tired (not been to the others recently). Hereford in particular has perked up no end since the 1990s.



    Looking North from the Beacon? I'm not sure on that one? East perhaps?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,054

    The problem the monarchy have is a bit like the ref in football - your best days are the ones where you're mostly in the background not really getting noticed just letting the game flow. And as soon as you start getting fussy and officious everyone boos you.

    Agree. Quite happy for the monarchy to carry on doing its thing as it has for all my lifetime, but the wall to wall coverage of the last few days makes me wonder if the rest of the world nods and smiles to itself going, yep, North Korea.

    We laugh at other countries for their cult of personality and yet eagerly lap it up here. The monarchy works best when it works quietly in the background - part of the nation's soft power. Bringing it front and centre in this way just makes us look like a third world dictatorship.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 6,509

    Modi shaking hands with Putin on the news.

    Twat.

    Presumably that handshake is worth a nice discount on the oil.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    dixiedean said:

    Ken Clarke not confident about the economy on World Tonight.

    Another gloomster. Hasn't he understood that Liz and Kwarsi are putting rocket boosters under our economy with tax cuts for the rich? That'll iron out any difficulties.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    kyf_100 said:

    The problem the monarchy have is a bit like the ref in football - your best days are the ones where you're mostly in the background not really getting noticed just letting the game flow. And as soon as you start getting fussy and officious everyone boos you.

    Agree. Quite happy for the monarchy to carry on doing its thing as it has for all my lifetime, but the wall to wall coverage of the last few days makes me wonder if the rest of the world nods and smiles to itself going, yep, North Korea.

    We laugh at other countries for their cult of personality and yet eagerly lap it up here. The monarchy works best when it works quietly in the background - part of the nation's soft power. Bringing it front and centre in this way just makes us look like a third world dictatorship.
    This was more for Elizabeth, who whatever you think was a once in centuries head of state. Charles or William's passing would not be marked in quite as big a way as this. You only have to see the still hours and miles long queues to see her coffin to recognise that
  • DynamoDynamo Posts: 608
    edited September 16
    How much will the queen's funeral and other official commemoration events cost?

    The figure of £8m quoted here for the funeral is ridiculous. The security alone will surely cost many times that. (Donald Trump's four-day visit in 2018 cost British police forces £14m.) The bank holiday on Monday will cost somewhere in the region of £1bn.

    https://www.consultancy.uk/news/31174/research-government-overestimates-the-cost-of-bank-holidays

    The Big Four accounting firms estimated in May that a bank holiday cost about £0.8bn, with the government model saying £1.4bn.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147
    edited September 16

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on Herefordshire


    Yes, Herefordshire does not have an Ipswich or Felixtowe like Suffolk, nor an Exeter like Devon, or a St Austell or a Camborne or a horrible old mining shithole like places in Northumberland, nor the saunas of Plymouth

    There is not one single horrible town in Herefordshire. Not one. It can be poor or run down but it is always picturesque, there is no industry, there are no high rise buildings, there is no real motorway - which is what Pevsner was driving at, and he is still right

    Aesthetically it is closer to a lost but lovely part of France, like, say, Lozere

    “As one stands on Worcestershire Beacon looking North across the M5 towards the Vale of Evesham the flat vista is only interrupted by Bredon Hill. Turn around and one is met with undulating magnificence all the way to Hay Bluff.

    Hereford, Leominster, Ledbury and Bromyard are tired. Ross is returning to its majestic splendour. Perhaps the rest will follow.”
    The Lozère comparison is apt. Or somewhere a big greener and less stark, like Corrèze. It is the Limousin of England.

    I disagree that Hereford or Ledbury are tired (not been to the others recently). Hereford in particular has perked up no end since the 1990s.
    Looking North from the Beacon? I'm not sure on that one? East perhaps?
    I would put Leominster ahead of Ross. There are some very run down and badly planned areas of Ross in a way you don't get in Leominster.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 30,521
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    I would do too. In another civil war we could form the royalist front rank against the PB republicans. Happy to lead a cavalry charge against MexicanPete if you command the infantry to hold off Dynamo and Union Divvie
    I'll sit it out, I think. Probably root for the Roundheads but not enough to bear musket.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,378
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    HYUFD said:

    These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.

    A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.

    Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1569698859831508995?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1569607557727092736?s=20&t=GHvXQt4xv4UVVPHygnUppw

    Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
    The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
    Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...

    Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
    Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
    Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement

    Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
    Like fuck you would. Too old, too fat and too craven. You'd be lodging with Littlejohn and shitting out articles for the King's daily.
    OK I’d scribble pamphlets and then rise on my gouty knees and take potshots at the proles from my windows, before collapsing back to my tankard of wine. I’d still fight

    I really would, by the way. There are few things that could bestir me to arms, that is one of them. Another is invasion of the UK. Also anyone seriously endangering my children OBVS

    After that it gets hazy. I agree with NATO defending NATO but I would not personally collect a musket to hold off the Russians outside Riga
    If the Russians invade we offer them Ipswich and hope their mutual shitiness is Pax for us all. Plus, no more Ipshit.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 2,144

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on Herefordshire


    Yes, Herefordshire does not have an Ipswich or Felixtowe like Suffolk, nor an Exeter like Devon, or a St Austell or a Camborne or a horrible old mining shithole like places in Northumberland, nor the saunas of Plymouth

    There is not one single horrible town in Herefordshire. Not one. It can be poor or run down but it is always picturesque, there is no industry, there are no high rise buildings, there is no real motorway - which is what Pevsner was driving at, and he is still right

    Aesthetically it is closer to a lost but lovely part of France, like, say, Lozere

    “As one stands on Worcestershire Beacon looking North across the M5 towards the Vale of Evesham the flat vista is only interrupted by Bredon Hill. Turn around and one is met with undulating magnificence all the way to Hay Bluff.

    Hereford, Leominster, Ledbury and Bromyard are tired. Ross is returning to its majestic splendour. Perhaps the rest will follow.”
    The Lozère comparison is apt. Or somewhere a big greener and less stark, like Corrèze. It is the Limousin of England.

    I disagree that Hereford or Ledbury are tired (not been to the others recently). Hereford in particular has perked up no end since the 1990s.
    The quotes got messed up - my contribution starts at “The Lozère”

    Looking North from the Beacon? I'm not sure on that one? East perhaps?

  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,085
    kyf_100 said:

    The problem the monarchy have is a bit like the ref in football - your best days are the ones where you're mostly in the background not really getting noticed just letting the game flow. And as soon as you start getting fussy and officious everyone boos you.

    Agree. Quite happy for the monarchy to carry on doing its thing as it has for all my lifetime, but the wall to wall coverage of the last few days makes me wonder if the rest of the world nods and smiles to itself going, yep, North Korea.

    We laugh at other countries for their cult of personality and yet eagerly lap it up here. The monarchy works best when it works quietly in the background - part of the nation's soft power. Bringing it front and centre in this way just makes us look like a third world dictatorship.
    I think normal service will be resumed very soon. And the next royal funeral won't be the same. It won't be a 70 year gap and Charles won't garner the same affection from the public.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486
    Something is wrong with quoting tonight?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 1,011
    It pains me to get involved in the ongoing trans culture wars, but this one is too bizarre not to share:

    https://reduxx.info/ontario-high-school-teacher-seen-wearing-massive-prosthetic-bust-to-teach/

    Canada, naturally.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 53,486

    Modi shaking hands with Putin on the news.

    Twat.

    Throw them out of the Commonwealth.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    kyf_100 said:

    The problem the monarchy have is a bit like the ref in football - your best days are the ones where you're mostly in the background not really getting noticed just letting the game flow. And as soon as you start getting fussy and officious everyone boos you.

    Agree. Quite happy for the monarchy to carry on doing its thing as it has for all my lifetime, but the wall to wall coverage of the last few days makes me wonder if the rest of the world nods and smiles to itself going, yep, North Korea.

    We laugh at other countries for their cult of personality and yet eagerly lap it up here. The monarchy works best when it works quietly in the background - part of the nation's soft power. Bringing it front and centre in this way just makes us look like a third world dictatorship.
    True story:

    I just got stopped on my way into my v pleasant Seville apartment by the woman who manages it. I thought I’d done something wrong, let burglars in through the roof terrace or something, but no, she stopped me because she wanted to earnestly express her condolences on the death of Ze Queen, Your Queen, i am Zo Zorry

    She really meant it. She looked personally sad. Much sadder than me

    Can you imagine doing that to any foreigner on the death of any foreign personage? Americans for JFK perhaps, but after that, nope

    That is soft power. Foreigners do not look at Britain and see North Korea, FFS, they see an ancient foreign institution which has somehow emotionally engaged them. We mess with this magical mixture, which projects a fine British brand of stability and pageantry, at our peril
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    Something is wrong with quoting tonight?

    I think somebody had deleted a blockquote name. I've randomly cut and pasted to put it back in.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,451
    IshmaelZ said:

    It's a notable thing about pb how republicanism is evenly spread across the political including leave/remain divides, fervent monarchism being confined to outright nutters and Kate n Meg pervs. The reason being that anyone who thinks seriously about politics from any angle knows that there's no justification for it.

    The reason being that PB is largely made up of well-heeled, middle aged men, who are very annoyed that we voted to leave the EU. It is in no sense, representative of public opinion.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 17,829
    edited September 16

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    FPT on Herefordshire


    Yes, Herefordshire does not have an Ipswich or Felixtowe like Suffolk, nor an Exeter like Devon, or a St Austell or a Camborne or a horrible old mining shithole like places in Northumberland, nor the saunas of Plymouth

    There is not one single horrible town in Herefordshire. Not one. It can be poor or run down but it is always picturesque, there is no industry, there are no high rise buildings, there is no real motorway - which is what Pevsner was driving at, and he is still right

    Aesthetically it is closer to a lost but lovely part of France, like, say, Lozere

    “As one stands on Worcestershire Beacon looking North across the M5 towards the Vale of Evesham the flat vista is only interrupted by Bredon Hill. Turn around and one is met with undulating magnificence all the way to Hay Bluff.

    Hereford, Leominster, Ledbury and Bromyard are tired. Ross is returning to its majestic splendour. Perhaps the rest will follow.”
    The Lozère comparison is apt. Or somewhere a big greener and less stark, like Corrèze. It is the Limousin of England.

    I disagree that Hereford or Ledbury are tired (not been to the others recently). Hereford in particular has perked up no end since the 1990s.
    Looking North from the Beacon? I'm not sure on that one? East perhaps?

    East, or North East would be more appropriate.

    Widemarsh Street and the shopping centre where the cattle market used to be are OK. High Town going towards Commercial Street is very tired.

    Ledbury is very sad at present. The Southend and the Homend look, shall we say, vacant. And whoever allowed the huge modern glass doorway on the Barrett Browning Institute (the Library) wants shooting.

    Ross on the other hand is buzzing!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147

    Modi shaking hands with Putin on the news.

    Twat.

    Typo. You missed an 's' off that last word.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739

    Modi shaking hands with Putin on the news.

    Twat.

    Throw them out of the Commonwealth.
    No, as while Modi may still deal with Putin, he also still hates Xi and we need India to contain China
  • The perennial challenge to republicans is who would you prefer as president.
    So the mental test is to find an age-equivalent to each generation of the Royals that would make an acceptable alternative.
    For QE2, the obvious alt is David Attenborough: widely respected, has excelled in many fields, apolitical but passionate.
    for KC3, I'd suggest Joanna Lumley: bit of a national treasure, has espoused causes dear to both sides of the political divide, eloquent and forthright.
    It gets more difficult now, because younger generations haven't had a chance to prove themselves (this is where monarchy has an advantage, because they don't have to prove themselves, just be)
    So for the PoW, perhaps a little levity?
    Ben Whishaw. The quintessentially British Q in the Bond franchise, plus - and what could be more timely? - the voice of Paddington. 'Thank you, m'am'. Also of course the first (openly) LGBT+ head of state. A bit cryptic on political views, but understandably so.
    After that, who knows? Widen it to the Commonwealth, and go for Malala Yousafzai? But by the time someone from that generation is needed, hopefully someone will have made themselves known.

    An interesting thought experiment, I hope.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,147
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    The problem the monarchy have is a bit like the ref in football - your best days are the ones where you're mostly in the background not really getting noticed just letting the game flow. And as soon as you start getting fussy and officious everyone boos you.

    Agree. Quite happy for the monarchy to carry on doing its thing as it has for all my lifetime, but the wall to wall coverage of the last few days makes me wonder if the rest of the world nods and smiles to itself going, yep, North Korea.

    We laugh at other countries for their cult of personality and yet eagerly lap it up here. The monarchy works best when it works quietly in the background - part of the nation's soft power. Bringing it front and centre in this way just makes us look like a third world dictatorship.
    True story:

    I just got stopped on my way into my v pleasant Seville apartment by the woman who manages it. I thought I’d done something wrong, let burglars in through the roof terrace or something, but no, she stopped me because she wanted to earnestly express her condolences on the death of Ze Queen, Your Queen, i am Zo Zorry

    She really meant it. She looked personally sad. Much sadder than me

    Can you imagine doing that to any foreigner on the death of any foreign personage? Americans for JFK perhaps, but after that, nope

    That is soft power. Foreigners do not look at Britain and see North Korea, FFS, they see an ancient foreign institution which has somehow emotionally engaged them. We mess with this magical mixture, which projects a fine British brand of stability and pageantry, at our peril
    The day Trump dies/is executed, I will cheerfully stop any American and tell them how happy I am for them.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,739
    edited September 16
    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    It's a notable thing about pb how republicanism is evenly spread across the political including leave/remain divides, fervent monarchism being confined to outright nutters and Kate n Meg pervs. The reason being that anyone who thinks seriously about politics from any angle knows that there's no justification for it.

    The reason being that PB is largely made up of well-heeled, middle aged men, who are very annoyed that we voted to leave the EU. It is in no sense, representative of public opinion.
    It is in no sense representative of the public at all, most of us on here are highly educated, relatively well off politics geeks and nerds many of whom long for a republic as they get more polls to devour over who will then win the next Presidential election!!
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 1,419
    OT - emboldened by last night’s result, I’m now going to Florence in three weeks’ time. Any recommendations for non touristy restaurants or cafés?

    Also, the Uffizi and Galleria dell’Accademia are on my list. See them with the guided tour or solo with guidebook?
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,054
    Leon said:

    kyf_100 said:

    The problem the monarchy have is a bit like the ref in football - your best days are the ones where you're mostly in the background not really getting noticed just letting the game flow. And as soon as you start getting fussy and officious everyone boos you.

    Agree. Quite happy for the monarchy to carry on doing its thing as it has for all my lifetime, but the wall to wall coverage of the last few days makes me wonder if the rest of the world nods and smiles to itself going, yep, North Korea.

    We laugh at other countries for their cult of personality and yet eagerly lap it up here. The monarchy works best when it works quietly in the background - part of the nation's soft power. Bringing it front and centre in this way just makes us look like a third world dictatorship.
    True story:

    I just got stopped on my way into my v pleasant Seville apartment by the woman who manages it. I thought I’d done something wrong, let burglars in through the roof terrace or something, but no, she stopped me because she wanted to earnestly express her condolences on the death of Ze Queen, Your Queen, i am Zo Zorry

    She really meant it. She looked personally sad. Much sadder than me

    Can you imagine doing that to any foreigner on the death of any foreign personage? Americans for JFK perhaps, but after that, nope

    That is soft power. Foreigners do not look at Britain and see North Korea, FFS, they see an ancient foreign institution which has somehow emotionally engaged them. We mess with this magical mixture, which projects a fine British brand of stability and pageantry, at our peril
    I personally find it absolutely barking mad. I enjoyed the jubilee, I felt a little bit sad when the Queen passed - the way one might feel about a distant but elderly relative. But the mawkishness of the last week or so has not been for me.

    What was it Lennon said? You think you're so clever and classless and free...
Sign In or Register to comment.