Seems so, someone rushed towards the coffin. Sadly it doesn't sound like they were impaled on a pike or chopped down with a sword before being removed by the police.
Must have been earlier - there was a break in the feed.
At least it didn't happen with the King present.
Inevitable. Feel a bit sorry for those who had queued for 12 hours only to have their moment in the hall ruined.
Honestly think the whole thing has gone on too long now....the relentless coverage encourages the nutters...who knows who else is lurking in the queue
Seems so, someone rushed towards the coffin. Sadly it doesn't sound like they were impaled on a pike or chopped down with a sword before being removed by the police.
Must have been earlier - there was a break in the feed.
At least it didn't happen with the King present.
Inevitable. Feel a bit sorry for those who had queued for 12 hours only to have their moment in the hall ruined.
Whilst it may break the reverential atmosphere, it will make for a better story, not only being there but there when a nutter went after the casket.
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...
It’s like religion. Most people are hard-wired to believe and are happier believing. For a similar reason most people are naturally royalist, and this is why great republics often acquire the trappings - the pomp and circumstance - of monarchies even when they started out aiming to avoid this. France and America are the obvious examples. People WANT the mystique and ritual
However a percentage of people just don’t have the mental circuitry for religious belief, and maybe a similar number lack the wiring for royalism. And there is clearly a large overlap between the two
These people just need to accept that they are usually - but not always - in a minority
Look at the popularity of Game of Thrones. Game of Figurehead Presidents? - not so exciting
As a wise man once said: "Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees".
Seems so, someone rushed towards the coffin. Sadly it doesn't sound like they were impaled on a pike or chopped down with a sword before being removed by the police.
Must have been earlier - there was a break in the feed.
At least it didn't happen with the King present.
Inevitable. Feel a bit sorry for those who had queued for 12 hours only to have their moment in the hall ruined.
Whilst it may break the reverential atmosphere, it will make for a better story, not only being there but there when a nutter went after the casket.
Temperature down to single figures at Heathrow. Quite a change from just a few weeks ago.
Definitely an autumnal nip in the air this evening.
No way my gas boiler is going on though. Time to get the jumpers out.
After a week of mixed weather, it’s now turning warmer in Pennsylvania, and we’re heading south to VA and NC, which look like having a scorching week. The last time I visited NC they had their all-time hottest October day; no records this time, please….
Seems so, someone rushed towards the coffin. Sadly it doesn't sound like they were impaled on a pike or chopped down with a sword before being removed by the police.
Must have been earlier - there was a break in the feed.
At least it didn't happen with the King present.
Inevitable. Feel a bit sorry for those who had queued for 12 hours only to have their moment in the hall ruined.
Honestly think the whole thing has gone on too long now....the relentless coverage encourages the nutters...who knows who else is lurking in the queue
Maybe VVP has sneaked in uninvited?
To be honest I am surprised there has not been more incidents.
The fact that there hasn't points to us being a very peaceful realm to be honest.
Temperature down to single figures at Heathrow. Quite a change from just a few weeks ago.
Definitely an autumnal nip in the air this evening.
No way my gas boiler is going on though. Time to get the jumpers out.
After a week of mixed weather, it’s now turning warmer in Pennsylvania, and we’re heading south to VA and NC, which look like having a scorching week. The last time I visited NC they had their all-time hottest October day; no records this time, please….
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Seems so, someone rushed towards the coffin. Sadly it doesn't sound like they were impaled on a pike or chopped down with a sword before being removed by the police.
Must have been earlier - there was a break in the feed.
At least it didn't happen with the King present.
Inevitable. Feel a bit sorry for those who had queued for 12 hours only to have their moment in the hall ruined.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
That's not what happened. The Conservative Party imposed a PM, and they could have done it with a vote of a couple hundred if they wanted.
I don't personally have an issue with switching PMs mid-term, that's how our system has always worked, but for those who don't like it I don't see how bringing up the internal membership of the Tory party is the thing to focus on, since it meant a lot more took part in the selection than is required.
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...
It’s like religion. Most people are hard-wired to believe and are happier believing. For a similar reason most people are naturally royalist, and this is why great republics often acquire the trappings - the pomp and circumstance - of monarchies even when they started out aiming to avoid this. France and America are the obvious examples. People WANT the mystique and ritual
However a percentage of people just don’t have the mental circuitry for religious belief, and maybe a similar number lack the wiring for royalism. And there is clearly a large overlap between the two
These people just need to accept that they are usually - but not always - in a minority
Look at the popularity of Game of Thrones. Game of Figurehead Presidents? - not so exciting
Religion doesn't require rituals, indeed the revolutionary force of Protestantism and of Islam was in part a reaction to the idolatry of liturgical religion with its costumes, idols and statues. As indeed was the motivating force or political revolutionaries. It is no coincidence that revolutionaries so often start with shooting priests.
Ritual is how rich people bend religion to serve the hierarchy.
All religion has rituals. All religion involves earthly hierarchy. Protestantism and Islam have never been exceptions to those two rules.
Are you confusing belief in God with religion?
Royalism is always religious. Most kings and pharoahs and emperors have claimed to reign by divine right or themselves to be divine.
Some arrangements are religious even if they declare themselves not to be (as Karl Marx knew well), but I wonder how many kings there have been in the history of the world who have proclaimed themselves to be either non-religious or atheist. Can anybody think of a single one?
Temperature down to single figures at Heathrow. Quite a change from just a few weeks ago.
Definitely an autumnal nip in the air this evening.
No way my gas boiler is going on though. Time to get the jumpers out.
After a week of mixed weather, it’s now turning warmer in Pennsylvania, and we’re heading south to VA and NC, which look like having a scorching week. The last time I visited NC they had their all-time hottest October day; no records this time, please….
How's america viewing the queen's funeral?
Anyone mentioned it yet?
Wall to wall on CNN, and a lot of coverage on Fox. But only one live person’s mentioned it so far, a conversation in the dog park where the American simply said we were lucky to have someone that everyone was willing come together to celebrate and mourn, since there wasn’t anyone such in the US.
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...
It’s like religion. Most people are hard-wired to believe and are happier believing. For a similar reason most people are naturally royalist, and this is why great republics often acquire the trappings - the pomp and circumstance - of monarchies even when they started out aiming to avoid this. France and America are the obvious examples. People WANT the mystique and ritual
However a percentage of people just don’t have the mental circuitry for religious belief, and maybe a similar number lack the wiring for royalism. And there is clearly a large overlap between the two
These people just need to accept that they are usually - but not always - in a minority
Look at the popularity of Game of Thrones. Game of Figurehead Presidents? - not so exciting
Yet, bizarrely, there is no shortage of successful TV shows and movies about Presidents and other elected politicians.
'Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America is a 1989 book by David Hackett Fischer that details the folkways of four groups of people who moved from distinct regions of Great Britain (Albion) to the United States. The argument is that the culture of each of the groups persisted, to provide the basis for the political culture of the modern United States.[2] Fischer explains "the origins and stability of a social system which for two centuries has remained stubbornly democratic in its politics, capitalist in its economy, libertarian in its laws and individualist in its society and pluralistic in its culture."'
So, from the very beginning, Puritans were only part of the mix. (The other three were "Cavaliers" in Virginia, Friends (Quakers) in Pennsylvania, and "Borderers" in the Appalachians.) Already, by 1776 there were substantail populations of other groups, notably Catholics in Maryland and pacifist Germans in Pennsylvania. And, of course, the Dutch in New York.
And the immigration that followed added many more groups, Irish, Swedes, Danes, Italians, Poles, Jews, and many more. And these aren't small groups. For example, the US may have a large number of Jews than Israel does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews#Diaspora_(outside_Israel) Chicago likes to claim that it has more Poles than any city other than Warsaw. And so on.
And the groups have mixed; for example, of my four grandparents two were German immigrants (from imperial Russia), one an immigrant from Denmark, and one descended from immigrants from England. And continue to mix; for example, my older sister married a man descended from immigrants from Scotland.
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...
It’s like religion. Most people are hard-wired to believe and are happier believing. For a similar reason most people are naturally royalist, and this is why great republics often acquire the trappings - the pomp and circumstance - of monarchies even when they started out aiming to avoid this. France and America are the obvious examples. People WANT the mystique and ritual
However a percentage of people just don’t have the mental circuitry for religious belief, and maybe a similar number lack the wiring for royalism. And there is clearly a large overlap between the two
These people just need to accept that they are usually - but not always - in a minority
Look at the popularity of Game of Thrones. Game of Figurehead Presidents? - not so exciting
Yet, bizarrely, there is no shortage of successful TV shows and movies about Presidents and other elected politicians.
It's also obvious that the power fantasy offered by so-called prestige drama like The Sopranos or Game of Thrones is closer to that of a monarchy than of a figurehead president.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
You and HY are a right pair. Charisma should be well down the list of qualities we seek from someone to run the country.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Another problem now. Hundreds of people collapsing in the queue
From telegraph Hundreds of people have collapsed in queue to see the late Queen’s coffin
Over 400 mourners have fallen ill in the line, with some suffering head injuries
No one is forcing them to be there. It is entirely voluntary. Maybe that is what you object to more than anything? The fact that people of their own free will choose to show their respects in such large numbers?
Another problem now. Hundreds of people collapsing in the queue
From telegraph Hundreds of people have collapsed in queue to see the late Queen’s coffin
Over 400 mourners have fallen ill in the line, with some suffering head injuries
No one is forcing them to be there. It is entirely voluntary. Maybe that is what you object to more than anything? The fact that people of their own free will choose to show their respects in such large numbers?
No, apparently it’s a conspiracy by the government that is making all these people turn up.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Unfortunately the choice was then passed to 160,000 Tory members who have no mandate from the public to make that decision. If just Tory MPs chose the PM in this scenario it would be much more acceptable as they have at least received a mandate of sorts from the public .
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Unfortunately the choice was then passed to 160,000 Tory members who have no mandate from the public to make that decision. If just Tory MPs chose the PM in this scenario it would be much more acceptable as they have at least received a mandate of sorts from the public .
I totally disagree.
In 2019 we voted for a Parliament not a President. If we thought we were voting for a Prime Minister, that was our error and not the error of 160,000 Tory members. The fact they then voted for the wrong candidate is a different matter.
It looks like the apparently "live" pictures of Westminster Hall aren't live after all.
When I looked back at the live feed at around 10pm to see the disturbance taking place, the cut away to Big Ben happened before the disturbance. Therefore the live feed must actually be on a delay, so that people watching online or on TV can't see anything untoward happening.
It looks like the apparently "live" pictures of Westminster Hall aren't live after all.
When I looked back at the live feed at around 10pm to see the disturbance taking place, the cut away to Big Ben happened before the disturbance. Therefore the live feed must actually be on a delay, so that people watching online or on TV can't see anything untoward happening.
Wouldn’t surprise me, most events like these have a slight delay. After all, what benefit is there it being live compared to a 30s delay?
It looks like the apparently "live" pictures of Westminster Hall aren't live after all.
When I looked back at the live feed at around 10pm to see the disturbance taking place, the cut away to Big Ben happened before the disturbance. Therefore the live feed must actually be on a delay, so that people watching online or on TV can't see anything untoward happening.
Wouldn’t surprise me, most events like these have a slight delay. After all, what benefit is there it being live compared to a 30s delay?
I don't mind the delay if they're honest about it. But they try to pretend it's live when it isn't. Of course this first started after the Janet Jackson incident about 10 years ago.
It looks like the apparently "live" pictures of Westminster Hall aren't live after all.
When I looked back at the live feed at around 10pm to see the disturbance taking place, the cut away to Big Ben happened before the disturbance. Therefore the live feed must actually be on a delay, so that people watching online or on TV can't see anything untoward happening.
Wouldn’t surprise me, most events like these have a slight delay. After all, what benefit is there it being live compared to a 30s delay?
I don't mind the delay if they're honest about it. But they try to pretend it's live when it isn't.
What’s your definition of live? Because nothing on TV is truly live.
It looks like the apparently "live" pictures of Westminster Hall aren't live after all.
When I looked back at the live feed at around 10pm to see the disturbance taking place, the cut away to Big Ben happened before the disturbance. Therefore the live feed must actually be on a delay, so that people watching online or on TV can't see anything untoward happening.
Wouldn’t surprise me, most events like these have a slight delay. After all, what benefit is there it being live compared to a 30s delay?
I don't mind the delay if they're honest about it. But they try to pretend it's live when it isn't. Of course this first started after the Janet Jackson incident about 10 years ago.
And no, broadcasting delays did not start 10 years ago.
Trussonomics is all about Marx and Keynes: that’s Groucho and Milton
Amid the understandable gloom, some good news this week: unemployment is at its lowest level for almost half a century. In fact it seems the only people losing their jobs these days are King Charles’s stationer, ministers who backed Rishi Sunak, Center Parcs’s social media team and Treasury civil servants with old-fashioned views about making the numbers add up.
A man called Sir Tom Scholar was fired as the chancellor’s top official for his adherence to “Treasury orthodoxy”, which is basically the idea that two plus two does not equal twelfty billion. Trussonomics, by contrast, is a heady mixture of Marx and Keynes (Groucho and Milton), promising you can keep cutting taxes to nothing while borrowing squillions, thanks to what’s known as the Laffer curve https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trussonomics-is-all-about-marx-and-keynes-thats-groucho-and-milton-ltqkkznt8 (£££)
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Constitutionally, that’s absolutely correct.
Looked at from a point of view of democracy, though, it’s pretty piss poor. As is, of course, FPTP - which it would also be absurd to criticise from a constitutional perspective.
Several points on recent dramatic developments in Armenia. They are largely overlooked but provide evidence of a catastrophic collapse of Russian foreign policy in a hugely important region https://twitter.com/YudinGreg/status/1570862053958774784
The auditor made that remark on CNN after court documents revealed on Monday, Sept. 12, revealed dozens of text messages showing how retired-NFL star Brett Favre, former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant and nonprofit leader Nancy New coordinated on procuring welfare funds to finance an $8-million volleyball stadium.
New ran the nonprofit Mississippi Community Education Center when it directed $5 million in Temporary Assistance For Needy Families to The University of Southern Mississippi Athletic Foundation, whose board she sat on, to fund the stadium on the Hattiesburg campus. Her nonprofit also directed $1.1 million to Favre for motivational speeches he never delivered.
She and her son, Zach New, have pled guilty to multiple state charges, including bribery and wire fraud as part of a plea agreement. The newly revealed text messages, revealed publicly in a court filing in a separate civil suit this week, shed light on how $6.1 million meant for the poorest families in the poorest state wound up going to Favre and a pet project at his alma mater instead.
The civil suit is part of the State of Mississippi’s efforts to recover tens of millions in misspent funds from dozens of players, including Favre, New and MCEC, her nonprofit.…
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.
Ain't that the truth.
I've seen several attempts by a contingent of UTOA Remainers to try and spark a culture war over the monarchy in recent days, and pull Brexit into it, but they've failed. Because for most people that has absolutely nothing to do with it - the latest polling has been utterly abominable for republicanism.
That's got to hurt. So we get rather desperate threads like this.
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.
Bbc has been way off the mark treating us like we are the all white britain of the 1950s not a modern multiethnic democracy. The nearly all white queues for the coffin show that ethnic minorities arent as enthused by the monarchy...thats good and fine but it will be a problem for the monarchy going forward
The trouble is, I think the BBC is actually pandering to what people want. A good 50-60% of the population enjoy the fawning adulation and deference to one's betters by dint of the accident of birth.
Years ago, when I was working in America, a friend said to me "race is to us what class is to you brits". Something that stuck with me to this day.
I don't mind the poshos being posh - I just object to it being rubbed in my face like some kind of cult by the media. However, as I say, I think they are responding to demand. People seem to like it. Masochism as the national culture. Please sir, may I have another?
The irony of this, though, is how much of republicanism is down to intellectual snobbery. There's a huge overlap between those who think like that and also believe themselves superior.
This means they don't want to pay 'deference' to anyone above them in any form because quite frankly it should bloody well be them in the chair and they want to make sure the plebs know it. The 'intellectual' arguments for a republic are really just a figleaf for this.
That's absolutely a class system, and it's just they want to be at the top of it.
Talking of scoffing snobbery from metropolitan remainers such as myself, this is clearly what her majesty would have wanted. Just as she would have wanted people to remain in their lodges at Center Parcs, and to be restricted to one sausage each at every Little Chef up and down the coutnry, for the duration of Monday's events.
A man has allegedly "rushed" at the queen's coffin.
When you think about it, Westminster Hall right now is quite a target for a political statement or an act of performance art.
Rub people's faces in hailing the dead chief too much...and they will respond.
It's hilarious watching the news reporters keeping a straight face.
We are all August Landmesser!
Spoiling it for the rest of us who want to pay our respects? Sounds about right.
I have floated the idea of dressing up as an Admiral of the Fleet or Chief Beefeater or something very grand flanked by two others in uniform and marching slowly into Westminster Hall with a fake crown on a pillow. We would go up to the coffin and replace the real crown with the fake. A slow march out again and away!
The lack of a suitable uniform and Mrs Icarus' veto means it will not be going ahead - well not by me!
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
The old Beeb doc on now about a year in Queen's life in 1990s is top stuff.
I think in certain professional /elite circles professing to be a monarchist or to love the monarchy is seen as a bit uncool - God, people might think you're a bit pleby and a bit intellectually unsophisticated? - so people pretend not to be bothered or make jokes about it.
I heard several times in the queue on Thursday night, "I'm not a royalist but.." followed by them explaining to me basically why they were a royalist, including how it brings people together, the ancient history, the importance of not having an elected head of state, and their personal admiration for HMQ and hopes for King Charles. Later, one woman (the same) said to me: actually, I am a royalist. Because she felt comfortable expressing it to me.
It's all part of the classic British trait of the importance of not being earnest and the need to be seen to laugh and mock at our institutions and our patriotism which we secretly love, but also find faintly embarrassing, and we don't want to be laughed at or mocked by others in turn. So we join in. But we'd hate it to be anything different at heart.
Those who know my proclivities confided in me yesterday they're watching the funeral on Monday, and travelling into Town with their families, or laying flowers, and that includes several Partners right at the top of my business.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
Agree 100% but this is absolutely what they are doing.
The current debate between monarchists and republicans seems pretty sterile on both sides. One side ignores that the hereditary principle is inherently exclusive and is subject to a genetic lottery and the impact of a bad monarch is devastating. The other side ignores the wider sense of family and belonging it gives to society and the grounding a good monarch gives government.
So I appreciate the British settlement that limits the power of kings, gives us mechanisms to deal with bad eggs, gives elected representatives in parliament power (so anyone with talent can rise to the top) and at the same time allows there to be a human being that represents the nation, who brings people together, is outside politics and critically takes some of the celebrity away from government.
That's a very small something, but what millions of people so desperately need, as so many even Tory thinktanks now agree - is a boost to the *amount* of Universal Credit - and they need it now.
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.
Ain't that the truth.
I've seen several attempts by a contingent of UTOA Remainers to try and spark a culture war over the monarchy in recent days, and pull Brexit into it, but they've failed. Because for most people that has absolutely nothing to do with it - the latest polling has been utterly abominable for republicanism.
That's got to hurt. So we get rather desperate threads like this.
I can't say I have seen a whole lot of that to be honest. Most of the efforts to link the issue of monarchism to Brexit seem to have come from the other side - painting Remainers as out of touch elitist republicans once again out of step with the views of the stout English yeomanry. I don't think that works really - I am a a remainer but a supporter of the monarchy who shed a tear at the Queen's death, and 60% of the people in the queue are Remainers, apparently. The two issues are orthogonal, because the death of the Queen is a fundamentally apolitical event - that of course being the entire point of having a monarchy - while Brexit remains a huge unresolved political question.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
Manifestos have never been binding on governments, so changing policies is perfectly proper constitutionally. We don't just send delegates to rubber stamp policies. There may or may not be an electoral price at the next GE of course.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
Manifestos have never been binding on governments, so changing policies is perfectly proper constitutionally. We don't just send delegates to rubber stamp policies. There may or may not be an electoral price at the next GE of course.
The Lib Dems are the most famous example. Did a 180 on their key manifesto pledge, made a lot of excuses, did a lot of damage and were destroyed by the electorate at the next election. They are yet to recover.
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.
Ain't that the truth.
I've seen several attempts by a contingent of UTOA Remainers to try and spark a culture war over the monarchy in recent days, and pull Brexit into it, but they've failed. Because for most people that has absolutely nothing to do with it - the latest polling has been utterly abominable for republicanism.
That's got to hurt. So we get rather desperate threads like this.
I can't say I have seen a whole lot of that to be honest. Most of the efforts to link the issue of monarchism to Brexit seem to have come from the other side - painting Remainers as out of touch elitist republicans once again out of step with the views of the stout English yeomanry. I don't think that works really - I am a a remainer but a supporter of the monarchy who shed a tear at the Queen's death, and 60% of the people in the queue are Remainers, apparently. The two issues are orthogonal, because the death of the Queen is a fundamentally apolitical event - that of course being the entire point of having a monarchy - while Brexit remains a huge unresolved political question.
On here at least there isn't a noticeable left/right split over the Monarchy either. I am a tepid Monarchist, not because of any love of the Windsors but rather because of the lack of better alternatives.
To a large extent I pity the Royal Family who are trapped in a fish bowl of spectacle that restricts and binds them, preventing them from many of the enjoyments of normal life, or at the very least pillioring them if they do.
Imagine having to go through life walking on eggshells in case you accidentally express an opinion on anything more than your love of kittens and puppies. It is a cruel institution, exemplified by HYFUDs plans to marry off Prince George for political reasons.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
Manifestos have never been binding on governments, so changing policies is perfectly proper constitutionally. We don't just send delegates to rubber stamp policies. There may or may not be an electoral price at the next GE of course.
The Lib Dems are the most famous example. Did a 180 on their key manifesto pledge, made a lot of excuses, did a lot of damage and were destroyed by the electorate at the next election. They are yet to recover.
Exactly. Governments can rip up manifestos, but will face an electoral price for doing so.
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.
Ain't that the truth.
I've seen several attempts by a contingent of UTOA Remainers to try and spark a culture war over the monarchy in recent days, and pull Brexit into it, but they've failed. Because for most people that has absolutely nothing to do with it - the latest polling has been utterly abominable for republicanism.
That's got to hurt. So we get rather desperate threads like this.
I can't say I have seen a whole lot of that to be honest. Most of the efforts to link the issue of monarchism to Brexit seem to have come from the other side - painting Remainers as out of touch elitist republicans once again out of step with the views of the stout English yeomanry. I don't think that works really - I am a a remainer but a supporter of the monarchy who shed a tear at the Queen's death, and 60% of the people in the queue are Remainers, apparently. The two issues are orthogonal, because the death of the Queen is a fundamentally apolitical event - that of course being the entire point of having a monarchy - while Brexit remains a huge unresolved political question.
Good for you.
I am referring to a contingent of the leader writers and opinion leaders (and the FBPE mob on Twitter) not the everyday troopers like yourself.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
Manifestos have never been binding on governments, so changing policies is perfectly proper constitutionally. We don't just send delegates to rubber stamp policies. There may or may not be an electoral price at the next GE of course.
True, but the accepted convention of masses of MPs being elected in a parliamentary system is based on a manifesto.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Constitutionally, that’s absolutely correct.
Looked at from a point of view of democracy, though, it’s pretty piss poor. As is, of course, FPTP - which it would also be absurd to criticise from a constitutional perspective.
Why is first past the post piss poor? I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but I don’t think it’s obviously worse than PR systems.
If you don’t have doubts about republics look at Putin and Trump.
If you don’t have doubts about monarchy look at the stifling class system, the hangers-on with their ridiculous titles, peacock dress and unearned wealth and the corruption of honours.
The black feminist Nigerian professor - Uju Anya who wished an “excruciating death” on Her Maj on Twitter, subsequently became a bit of a heroine to some; especially Igbo Nigerian people, whose cause she espouses
However, it has recently been “revealed” that Ms Anya is a quite outspoken lesbian, and she is now getting violent homophobic abuse. Including menaces against her children. Most of it is from homophobic Nigerian Igbo people
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.
Ain't that the truth.
I've seen several attempts by a contingent of UTOA Remainers to try and spark a culture war over the monarchy in recent days, and pull Brexit into it, but they've failed. Because for most people that has absolutely nothing to do with it - the latest polling has been utterly abominable for republicanism.
That's got to hurt. So we get rather desperate threads like this.
I can't say I have seen a whole lot of that to be honest. Most of the efforts to link the issue of monarchism to Brexit seem to have come from the other side - painting Remainers as out of touch elitist republicans once again out of step with the views of the stout English yeomanry. I don't think that works really - I am a a remainer but a supporter of the monarchy who shed a tear at the Queen's death, and 60% of the people in the queue are Remainers, apparently. The two issues are orthogonal, because the death of the Queen is a fundamentally apolitical event - that of course being the entire point of having a monarchy - while Brexit remains a huge unresolved political question.
On here at least there isn't a noticeable left/right split over the Monarchy either. I am a tepid Monarchist, not because of any love of the Windsors but rather because of the lack of better alternatives.
To a large extent I pity the Royal Family who are trapped in a fish bowl of spectacle that restricts and binds them, preventing them from many of the enjoyments of normal life, or at the very least pillioring them if they do.
Imagine having to go through life walking on eggshells in case you accidentally express an opinion on anything more than your love of kittens and puppies. It is a cruel institution, exemplified by HYFUDs plans to marry off Prince George for political reasons.
Unless you’re directly in line, you can drop out of the wider Royal Family. People do
And yet generally they don’t. I’m guessing that this is because the life isn’t so bad. Yes there is public scrutiny, but there is also money, status, grovelling, brilliant chances for networking, lots of parties, etc
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
TBF to Cyclefree, the Tory Party itself went on about its members choosing the next PM, in those words pretty much - ie. not just Party Leader. Quite the constitutional faux pas. (From memory this was particularly the case a day or two before the ballot results were released.)
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
You are surprised that those elderly men voted for a blonde woman who wears well-fitted dresses, (allegedly) kinky jewellery, and who promised them the world on a plate and all for free?
I thought you understood the world better than that.
[Note to PB: The Oxford comma above was used as an act of rebellion]
The black feminist Nigerian professor - Uju Anya who wished an “excruciating death” on Her Maj on Twitter, subsequently became a bit of a heroine to some; especially Igbo Nigerian people, whose cause she espouses
However, it has recently been “revealed” that Ms Anya is a quite outspoken lesbian, and she is now getting violent homophobic abuse. Including menaces against her children. Most of it is from homophobic Nigerian Igbo people
The black feminist Nigerian professor - Uju Anya who wished an “excruciating death” on Her Maj on Twitter, subsequently became a bit of a heroine to some; especially Igbo Nigerian people, whose cause she espouses
However, it has recently been “revealed” that Ms Anya is a quite outspoken lesbian, and she is now getting violent homophobic abuse. Including menaces against her children. Most of it is from homophobic Nigerian Igbo people
It's why Woke is a game you shouldn't play.
It’s like juggling grenades. Looks stupid yet impressive and gets you a lot of attention, until… BANG
If you don’t have doubts about republics look at Putin and Trump.
If you don’t have doubts about monarchy look at the stifling class system, the hangers-on with their ridiculous titles, peacock dress and unearned wealth and the corruption of honours.
It's those who are never going to get an honour who dislike them the most.
Is it possible to have a monarch without a class system?
Reserve the titles for the monarch, their and their immediate heir. The titles become associated with the role. A job title and little more. Do away with the rest. No more dukes, Earls, etc etc.
Everyone else is a private citizen and has to earn their keep. Inheritance tax is real. For example, the current Duke of York becomes Mr Andrew Windsor, he had to get a proper job and a mortgage. His children stand the chance of a normal life.
If you don’t have doubts about republics look at Putin and Trump.
If you don’t have doubts about monarchy look at the stifling class system, the hangers-on with their ridiculous titles, peacock dress and unearned wealth and the corruption of honours.
It's those who are never going to get an honour who dislike them the most.
Yu're confusing cause and effect. Some folk find it inconsistent with ordinary decent self-respect to take honours.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
Agreed. If Boris had been deposed because he had suddenly started making crazy policy decisions contrary to the platform he had been elected on then dumping him should have been about going back to the policies they were elected on.
Boris however was deposed because he was a problem and toxic - if he hadn’t been personally problematic then he wouldn’t have gone so to then effectively change the govt and manifesto completely (which is what has happened - a totally new gov and almost a new party in power) without a GE isn’t overly defensible.
If you don’t have doubts about republics look at Putin and Trump.
If you don’t have doubts about monarchy look at the stifling class system, the hangers-on with their ridiculous titles, peacock dress and unearned wealth and the corruption of honours.
It's those who are never going to get an honour who dislike them the most.
I had a scary realisation this morning. Hopefully just a hypnopompic delusion
It was this: the Ukraine war looks like it can only end in Russian defeat, as it stands. That will be an existential threat not just to Putin, but to the entire Russian elite, from the generals to the oligarchs to the propagandists. If Putin goes they all go. The Russian people will turn on them all
They can’t risk it. Which means they can’t risk defeat. Which means a nuclear strike, if needs be
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
Agreed. If Boris had been deposed because he had suddenly started making crazy policy decisions contrary to the platform he had been elected on then dumping him should have been about going back to the policies they were elected on.
Boris however was deposed because he was a problem and toxic - if he hadn’t been personally problematic then he wouldn’t have gone so to then effectively change the govt and manifesto completely (which is what has happened - a totally new gov and almost a new party in power) without a GE isn’t overly defensible.
Hmm, that would give the Lords a justification for being difficult.
If you don’t have doubts about republics look at Putin and Trump.
If you don’t have doubts about monarchy look at the stifling class system, the hangers-on with their ridiculous titles, peacock dress and unearned wealth and the corruption of honours.
It's those who are never going to get an honour who dislike them the most.
Yu're confusing cause and effect. Some folk find it inconsistent with ordinary decent self-respect to take honours.
I certainly would not take one if it was offered. Of course I am unlikely to be offered one, but I think they are wrong in several ways.
Several points on recent dramatic developments in Armenia. They are largely overlooked but provide evidence of a catastrophic collapse of Russian foreign policy in a hugely important region https://twitter.com/YudinGreg/status/1570862053958774784
I liked this description of Putin in the replies
“ He’s like a cartoon cat running off a cliff - he’s just not looked down yet.”
Has any Extinction Rebellion activist nailed his own head to the coffin yet?
I'll admit to being surprised by the crowds. I'd always assumed the pro-monarchists and anti-monarchists were about evenly balanced, with many who weren't bothered either way. Seems there's still a bit of hankering for the Royalty.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
TBF to Cyclefree, the Tory Party itself went on about its members choosing the next PM, in those words pretty much - ie. not just Party Leader. Quite the constitutional faux pas. (From memory this was particularly the case a day or two before the ballot results were released.)
And as I pointed out on here many times - the candidates framed the debate in terms of being PM, not of winning the leadership.
It seemed to me that the power and prestige of being PM is what drove them and the Tory Party was a poor second in their view. Basically, they used the Tories.
I had a scary realisation this morning. Hopefully just a hypnopompic delusion
It was this: the Ukraine war looks like it can only end in Russian defeat, as it stands. That will be an existential threat not just to Putin, but to the entire Russian elite, from the generals to the oligarchs to the propagandists. If Putin goes they all go. The Russian people will turn on them all
They can’t risk it. Which means they can’t risk defeat. Which means a nuclear strike, if needs be
Are not the oligarchs etc in close touch with the leaders of our country, Mr Leon? I am sure they can find a way to preserve themselves and their own interests. Once they no longer have to fall out of windows, of course.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
You are surprised that those elderly men voted for a blonde woman who wears well-fitted dresses, (allegedly) kinky jewellery, and who promised them the world on a plate and all for free?
I thought you understood the world better than that.
[Note to PB: The Oxford comma above was used as an act of rebellion]
For me, that is a normal comma, and nothing to do with Oxford. Why do some people call it that?
Temperature down to single figures at Heathrow. Quite a change from just a few weeks ago.
Definitely an autumnal nip in the air this evening.
No way my gas boiler is going on though. Time to get the jumpers out.
After a week of mixed weather, it’s now turning warmer in Pennsylvania, and we’re heading south to VA and NC, which look like having a scorching week. The last time I visited NC they had their all-time hottest October day; no records this time, please….
How's america viewing the queen's funeral?
Anyone mentioned it yet?
Wall to wall on CNN, and a lot of coverage on Fox. But only one live person’s mentioned it so far, a conversation in the dog park where the American simply said we were lucky to have someone that everyone was willing come together to celebrate and mourn, since there wasn’t anyone such in the US.
That’s a real world expression of one of the arguments for monarchy - a non political unifying figure
I had a scary realisation this morning. Hopefully just a hypnopompic delusion
It was this: the Ukraine war looks like it can only end in Russian defeat, as it stands. That will be an existential threat not just to Putin, but to the entire Russian elite, from the generals to the oligarchs to the propagandists. If Putin goes they all go. The Russian people will turn on them all
They can’t risk it. Which means they can’t risk defeat. Which means a nuclear strike, if needs be
The calculation has to be that any use of nuclear weapons causes further destabilisation and risk.
Far more likely that Russia entered a period where different parts of the Russian elite fight it out for primacy amongst themselves. They will immediately distance themselves from previous failures.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
You are surprised that those elderly men voted for a blonde woman who wears well-fitted dresses, (allegedly) kinky jewellery, and who promised them the world on a plate and all for free?
I thought you understood the world better than that.
[Note to PB: The Oxford comma above was used as an act of rebellion]
For me, that is a normal comma, and nothing to do with Oxford. Why do some people call it that?
I had a scary realisation this morning. Hopefully just a hypnopompic delusion
It was this: the Ukraine war looks like it can only end in Russian defeat, as it stands. That will be an existential threat not just to Putin, but to the entire Russian elite, from the generals to the oligarchs to the propagandists. If Putin goes they all go. The Russian people will turn on them all
They can’t risk it. Which means they can’t risk defeat. Which means a nuclear strike, if needs be
I don't think that is the case.
It's true that defeat will make Putin's grip on power weaker, but survival is possible, just as it was for Saddam after the first gulf war. As Russia experiences further defeats in Ukraine, so Putin's priority will become retaining power and not winning the war in Ukraine. The two are not so tightly coupled.
Secondly, much as I'd prefer Ukraine's victory to be rapid and soon, it's more likely to happen in stages, over a relatively long period of time. This means that Russia's leaders will have a chance to get used to the idea of defeat, and it will not be so shocking for them.
Crucially, Ukraine's territorial ambitions end at their internationally recognised 1991 borders, and so defeat in the war is not an existential threat to Russia as a country. Insofar as defeat is a threat to the regime, the more immediate enemies to the regime will become internal in Russia, rather than external in Ukraine. Nuclear weapons do not protect Putin from a coup, street protests or rebellious regions.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
You are surprised that those elderly men voted for a blonde woman who wears well-fitted dresses, (allegedly) kinky jewellery, and who promised them the world on a plate and all for free?
I thought you understood the world better than that.
[Note to PB: The Oxford comma above was used as an act of rebellion]
For me, that is a normal comma, and nothing to do with Oxford. Why do some people call it that?
"It has been called the Oxford or Harvard comma because those two organizations famously promoted it at a time when newspapers routinely omitted it to save line space."
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Constitutionally, that’s absolutely correct.
Looked at from a point of view of democracy, though, it’s pretty piss poor. As is, of course, FPTP - which it would also be absurd to criticise from a constitutional perspective.
Why is first past the post piss poor? I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but I don’t think it’s obviously worse than PR systems.
Oh yes it is! FPTP really means the leading candidate (or party) grabs the lot. Conservatives see nothing wrong in this, of course. But everybody else does - or ought to.
This is why I do not understand the position of the Labour Party over the years.
Temperature down to single figures at Heathrow. Quite a change from just a few weeks ago.
Definitely an autumnal nip in the air this evening.
No way my gas boiler is going on though. Time to get the jumpers out.
After a week of mixed weather, it’s now turning warmer in Pennsylvania, and we’re heading south to VA and NC, which look like having a scorching week. The last time I visited NC they had their all-time hottest October day; no records this time, please….
How's america viewing the queen's funeral?
Anyone mentioned it yet?
Wall to wall on CNN, and a lot of coverage on Fox. But only one live person’s mentioned it so far, a conversation in the dog park where the American simply said we were lucky to have someone that everyone was willing come together to celebrate and mourn, since there wasn’t anyone such in the US.
That’s a real world expression of one of the arguments for monarchy - a non political unifying figure
The interesting and unanswerable question is whether that is mostly down to the person or the role. The Americans mourned JFK in a similar way. My hunch is that HM was respected more for who she was and what she did than her titles. Mandela was never king, but loved and respected in a similar way.
I had a scary realisation this morning. Hopefully just a hypnopompic delusion
It was this: the Ukraine war looks like it can only end in Russian defeat, as it stands. That will be an existential threat not just to Putin, but to the entire Russian elite, from the generals to the oligarchs to the propagandists. If Putin goes they all go. The Russian people will turn on them all
They can’t risk it. Which means they can’t risk defeat. Which means a nuclear strike, if needs be
Are not the oligarchs etc in close touch with the leaders of our country, Mr Leon? I am sure they can find a way to preserve themselves and their own interests. Once they no longer have to fall out of windows, of course.
I just can’t see a way where this ends without enormous violence. Putin isn’t going to say “ah soz, got that wrong” and meekly head off to retirement in the Maldives
The entire Russian geopolitical system is crashing. See Armenia, Kyrgyzstan. The implosion will shake us all. Like a collapsing star sucking matter into the black hole
I note that Biden has just given an interview warning Putin against the use of nukes
NEW: income inequality in US & UK is so wide that while the richest are very well off, the poorest have a worse standard of living than the poorest in countries like Slovenia ft.com/content/ef2654…
Essentially, US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
The only caveat I would make on that is that, strictly speaking, Truss shouldn't change a bean of policy over the last Conservative manifeso unless she calls a GE.
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
Agreed. If Boris had been deposed because he had suddenly started making crazy policy decisions contrary to the platform he had been elected on then dumping him should have been about going back to the policies they were elected on.
Boris however was deposed because he was a problem and toxic - if he hadn’t been personally problematic then he wouldn’t have gone so to then effectively change the govt and manifesto completely (which is what has happened - a totally new gov and almost a new party in power) without a GE isn’t overly defensible.
Hmm, that would give the Lords a justification for being difficult.
Was thinking of it from an alternative universe where Ed Miliband had been elected and then deposed as PM for embarrassing the nation by eating a taco badly with the POTUS and being replaced by Corbyn.
Tories like myself would be outraged that suddenly a radical change in gov direction was happening based on the decision of a relatively small group of Trots and agitators who had signed up to Labour.
So I can’t be hypocritical and think that it’s ok for the Tories to do the same because what this new gov is doing is a radical departure from what they were elected on - whether you agree with the direction or not it’s not great.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Constitutionally, that’s absolutely correct.
Looked at from a point of view of democracy, though, it’s pretty piss poor. As is, of course, FPTP - which it would also be absurd to criticise from a constitutional perspective.
Why is first past the post piss poor? I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but I don’t think it’s obviously worse than PR systems.
Oh yes it is! FPTP really means the leading candidate (or party) grabs the lot. Conservatives see nothing wrong in this, of course. But everybody else does - or ought to.
This is why I do not understand the position of the Labour Party over the years.
I don't think that's true. The Tories have just ditched their leader because they weren't doing a good job.
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Constitutionally, that’s absolutely correct.
Looked at from a point of view of democracy, though, it’s pretty piss poor. As is, of course, FPTP - which it would also be absurd to criticise from a constitutional perspective.
Why is first past the post piss poor? I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but I don’t think it’s obviously worse than PR systems.
Oh yes it is! FPTP really means the leading candidate (or party) grabs the lot. Conservatives see nothing wrong in this, of course. But everybody else does - or ought to.
This is why I do not understand the position of the Labour Party over the years.
Because they only see the problems with it when it doesn't work for them.
At the same time, they can only do something about it when it's just won them an election victory.
(In fact, FPTP does work in many important ways to Labour's advantage. Under a proportional system in 1983 and 2010 they would have got around 150/175 seats instead of 200/250, and been in real dispute with the Liberal Democrats for second place.)
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
Those elderly mostly male voters did nothing of the sort. They chose a new leader for their party, nothing more.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
Constitutionally, that’s absolutely correct.
Looked at from a point of view of democracy, though, it’s pretty piss poor. As is, of course, FPTP - which it would also be absurd to criticise from a constitutional perspective.
Why is first past the post piss poor? I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but I don’t think it’s obviously worse than PR systems.
Oh yes it is! FPTP really means the leading candidate (or party) grabs the lot. Conservatives see nothing wrong in this, of course. But everybody else does - or ought to.
This is why I do not understand the position of the Labour Party over the years.
I don't think that's true. The Tories have just ditched their leader because they weren't doing a good job.
They've ditched their leader because he couldn't form a cabinet. And that wasn't because he was doing a bad job, although he was (literally a criminally bad job) but because he had lied to them and therefore caused them to lie to Parliament and the media.
Comments
"Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees".
No way my gas boiler is going on though. Time to get the jumpers out.
The fact that there hasn't points to us being a very peaceful realm to be honest.
Imagine this happening in America?
Anyone mentioned it yet?
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
Then there's the justice system, the police, prisons, the education system, the fact that we can't build so much as a garden shed without it costing three trillion quid and taking 38 years, greedy executives at the top, the lack of housing unaffordable by anyone who isn't already a squillionaire, a social care system which is creaking at the seams, ditto the NHS, our gross negligence and worse to children in our care etc.,. And so on. Plenty more could go on the list.
More constitutional tinkering is yet another avoidance technique - to not face up to and take action about the very real problems politicians have talked about for years and done the square root of fuck all about.
Good night.
I don't personally have an issue with switching PMs mid-term, that's how our system has always worked, but for those who don't like it I don't see how bringing up the internal membership of the Tory party is the thing to focus on, since it meant a lot more took part in the selection than is required.
When you think about it, Westminster Hall right now is quite a target for a political statement or an act of performance art.
Rub people's faces in hailing the dead chief too much...and they will respond.
It's hilarious watching the news reporters keeping a straight face.
We are all August Landmesser!
Are you confusing belief in God with religion?
Royalism is always religious. Most kings and pharoahs and emperors have claimed to reign by divine right or themselves to be divine.
Some arrangements are religious even if they declare themselves not to be (as Karl Marx knew well), but I wonder how many kings there have been in the history of the world who have proclaimed themselves to be either non-religious or atheist. Can anybody think of a single one?
'Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America is a 1989 book by David Hackett Fischer that details the folkways of four groups of people who moved from distinct regions of Great Britain (Albion) to the United States. The argument is that the culture of each of the groups persisted, to provide the basis for the political culture of the modern United States.[2] Fischer explains "the origins and stability of a social system which for two centuries has remained stubbornly democratic in its politics, capitalist in its economy, libertarian in its laws and individualist in its society and pluralistic in its culture."'
So, from the very beginning, Puritans were only part of the mix. (The other three were "Cavaliers" in Virginia, Friends (Quakers) in Pennsylvania, and "Borderers" in the Appalachians.) Already, by 1776 there were substantail populations of other groups, notably Catholics in Maryland and pacifist Germans in Pennsylvania. And, of course, the Dutch in New York.
And the immigration that followed added many more groups, Irish, Swedes, Danes, Italians, Poles, Jews, and many more. And these aren't small groups. For example, the US may have a large number of Jews than Israel does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews#Diaspora_(outside_Israel) Chicago likes to claim that it has more Poles than any city other than Warsaw. And so on.
And the groups have mixed; for example, of my four grandparents two were German immigrants (from imperial Russia), one an immigrant from Denmark, and one descended from immigrants from England. And continue to mix; for example, my older sister married a man descended from immigrants from Scotland.
At no time did that take away or change the right of our elected MPs to vote down that new leader and either pick another one from the exiting Parliament or call a GE. Nothing about how Truss was chosen changed the basic principle that we elect our MPs and they then choose who will be PM.
In 2019 we voted for a Parliament not a President. If we thought we were voting for a Prime Minister, that was our error and not the error of 160,000 Tory members. The fact they then voted for the wrong candidate is a different matter.
When I looked back at the live feed at around 10pm to see the disturbance taking place, the cut away to Big Ben happened before the disturbance. Therefore the live feed must actually be on a delay, so that people watching online or on TV can't see anything untoward happening.
Amid the understandable gloom, some good news this week: unemployment is at its lowest level for almost half a century. In fact it seems the only people losing their jobs these days are King Charles’s stationer, ministers who backed Rishi Sunak, Center Parcs’s social media team and Treasury civil servants with old-fashioned views about making the numbers add up.
A man called Sir Tom Scholar was fired as the chancellor’s top official for his adherence to “Treasury orthodoxy”, which is basically the idea that two plus two does not equal twelfty billion. Trussonomics, by contrast, is a heady mixture of Marx and Keynes (Groucho and Milton), promising you can keep cutting taxes to nothing while borrowing squillions, thanks to what’s known as the Laffer curve
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trussonomics-is-all-about-marx-and-keynes-thats-groucho-and-milton-ltqkkznt8 (£££)
Kwasi Kwarteng is reviewing the government’s fiscal rules as he prepares to announce £30 billion of tax cuts.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kwasi-kwarteng-to-bend-rules-for-30bn-tax-cuts-bj8w0z3n9 (£££)
https://www.gbnews.uk/news/travelodge-stocks-up-on-extra-sausages-and-eggs-ahead-of-queen-elizabeth-iis-funeral/367389
This is a brilliant discussion between Andrew Sullivan and Louise Perry IMO.
"Louise Perry On The Sexual Revolution
The post-liberal feminist has a new polemic against casual sex, porn, BDSM, dating apps and prostitution."
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/louise-perry-on-the-sexual-revolution
Looked at from a point of view of democracy, though, it’s pretty piss poor. As is, of course, FPTP - which it would also be absurd to criticise from a constitutional perspective.
Several points on recent dramatic developments in Armenia. They are largely overlooked but provide evidence of a catastrophic collapse of Russian foreign policy in a hugely important region
https://twitter.com/YudinGreg/status/1570862053958774784
What kind of person worth (a legitimately earned) 100m+ would steal from poor people like this ?
How Brett Favre Secured $6 Million In Welfare Funds For A Volleyball Stadium
https://www.mississippifreepress.org/27465/in-depth-how-brett-favre-secured-6-million-in-welfare-funds-for-a-volleyball-stadium
“Multiple prosecutors” are still examining the facts and making decisions about criminal charges in Mississippi’s sprawling welfare scandal that saw millions in funds meant for poor families go instead to wealthy celebrities, Mississippi State Auditor Shad White said on Thursday, Sept. 15.
The auditor made that remark on CNN after court documents revealed on Monday, Sept. 12, revealed dozens of text messages showing how retired-NFL star Brett Favre, former Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant and nonprofit leader Nancy New coordinated on procuring welfare funds to finance an $8-million volleyball stadium.
New ran the nonprofit Mississippi Community Education Center when it directed $5 million in Temporary Assistance For Needy Families to The University of Southern Mississippi Athletic Foundation, whose board she sat on, to fund the stadium on the Hattiesburg campus. Her nonprofit also directed $1.1 million to Favre for motivational speeches he never delivered.
She and her son, Zach New, have pled guilty to multiple state charges, including bribery and wire fraud as part of a plea agreement. The newly revealed text messages, revealed publicly in a court filing in a separate civil suit this week, shed light on how $6.1 million meant for the poorest families in the poorest state wound up going to Favre and a pet project at his alma mater instead.
The civil suit is part of the State of Mississippi’s efforts to recover tens of millions in misspent funds from dozens of players, including Favre, New and MCEC, her nonprofit.…
I've seen several attempts by a contingent of UTOA Remainers to try and spark a culture war over the monarchy in recent days, and pull Brexit into it, but they've failed. Because for most people that has absolutely nothing to do with it - the latest polling has been utterly abominable for republicanism.
That's got to hurt. So we get rather desperate threads like this.
This means they don't want to pay 'deference' to anyone above them in any form because quite frankly it should bloody well be them in the chair and they want to make sure the plebs know it. The 'intellectual' arguments for a republic are really just a figleaf for this.
That's absolutely a class system, and it's just they want to be at the top of it.
The lack of a suitable uniform and Mrs Icarus' veto means it will not be going ahead - well not by me!
She has no mandate to do anything different from the basis upon which Boris Johnson was elected, and can't derive one from her victory.
I heard several times in the queue on Thursday night, "I'm not a royalist but.." followed by them explaining to me basically why they were a royalist, including how it brings people together, the ancient history, the importance of not having an elected head of state, and their personal admiration for HMQ and hopes for King Charles. Later, one woman (the same) said to me: actually, I am a royalist. Because she felt comfortable expressing it to me.
It's all part of the classic British trait of the importance of not being earnest and the need to be seen to laugh and mock at our institutions and our patriotism which we secretly love, but also find faintly embarrassing, and we don't want to be laughed at or mocked by others in turn. So we join in. But we'd hate it to be anything different at heart.
Those who know my proclivities confided in me yesterday they're watching the funeral on Monday, and travelling into Town with their families, or laying flowers, and that includes several Partners right at the top of my business.
Hold fast and hang on in there! You'll make it through.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/19621868/cost-of-living-payments-latest-pensioners-energy-crisis/
So I appreciate the British settlement that limits the power of kings, gives us mechanisms to deal with bad eggs, gives elected representatives in parliament power (so anyone with talent can rise to the top) and at the same time allows there to be a human being that represents the nation, who brings people together, is outside politics and critically takes some of the celebrity away from government.
The worst part for me was 3-5am as they stopped the queue for about an hour for cleaning. It was freezing cold as we didn't move
To a large extent I pity the Royal Family who are trapped in a fish bowl of spectacle that restricts and binds them, preventing them from many of the enjoyments of normal life, or at the very least pillioring them if they do.
Imagine having to go through life walking on eggshells in case you accidentally express an opinion on anything more than your love of kittens and puppies. It is a cruel institution, exemplified by HYFUDs plans to marry off Prince George for political reasons.
Arise Sir Casino, arise Sir Gareth.
I am referring to a contingent of the leader writers and opinion leaders (and the FBPE mob on Twitter) not the everyday troopers like yourself.
If you don’t have doubts about monarchy look at the stifling class system, the hangers-on with their ridiculous titles, peacock dress and unearned wealth and the corruption of honours.
The black feminist Nigerian professor - Uju Anya who wished an “excruciating death” on Her Maj on Twitter, subsequently became a bit of a heroine to some; especially Igbo Nigerian people, whose cause she espouses
However, it has recently been “revealed” that Ms Anya is a quite outspoken lesbian, and she is now getting violent homophobic abuse. Including menaces against her children. Most of it is from homophobic Nigerian Igbo people
the wider Royal Family. People do
And yet generally they don’t. I’m guessing that this is because the life isn’t so bad. Yes there is public scrutiny, but there is also money, status, grovelling, brilliant chances for networking, lots of parties, etc
There are worse fates
I thought you understood the world better than that.
[Note to PB: The Oxford comma above was used as an act of rebellion]
Reserve the titles for the monarch, their and their immediate heir. The titles become associated with the role. A job title and little more. Do away with the rest. No more dukes, Earls, etc etc.
Everyone else is a private citizen and has to earn their keep. Inheritance tax is real. For example, the current Duke of York becomes Mr Andrew Windsor, he had to get a proper job and a mortgage. His children stand the chance of a normal life.
Set an example that success is earned.
Boris however was deposed because he was a problem and toxic - if he hadn’t been personally problematic then he wouldn’t have gone so to then effectively change the govt and manifesto completely (which is what has happened - a totally new gov and almost a new party in power) without a GE isn’t overly defensible.
It was this: the Ukraine war looks like it can only end in Russian defeat, as it stands. That will be an existential threat not just to Putin, but to the entire Russian elite, from the generals to the oligarchs to the propagandists. If Putin goes they all go. The Russian people will turn on them all
They can’t risk it. Which means they can’t risk defeat. Which means a nuclear strike, if needs be
“ He’s like a cartoon cat running off a cliff - he’s just not looked down yet.”
I'll admit to being surprised by the crowds. I'd always assumed the pro-monarchists and anti-monarchists were about evenly balanced, with many who weren't bothered either way. Seems there's still a bit of hankering for the Royalty.
It seemed to me that the power and prestige of being PM is what drove them and the Tory Party was a poor second in their view. Basically, they used the Tories.
Far more likely that Russia entered a period where different parts of the Russian elite fight it out for primacy amongst themselves. They will immediately distance themselves from previous failures.
It's true that defeat will make Putin's grip on power weaker, but survival is possible, just as it was for Saddam after the first gulf war. As Russia experiences further defeats in Ukraine, so Putin's priority will become retaining power and not winning the war in Ukraine. The two are not so tightly coupled.
Secondly, much as I'd prefer Ukraine's victory to be rapid and soon, it's more likely to happen in stages, over a relatively long period of time. This means that Russia's leaders will have a chance to get used to the idea of defeat, and it will not be so shocking for them.
Crucially, Ukraine's territorial ambitions end at their internationally recognised 1991 borders, and so defeat in the war is not an existential threat to Russia as a country. Insofar as defeat is a threat to the regime, the more immediate enemies to the regime will become internal in Russia, rather than external in Ukraine. Nuclear weapons do not protect Putin from a coup, street protests or rebellious regions.
https://medium.com/@engtuto1/why-is-oxford-comma-called-so-9e38eb6b59fc
This is why I do not understand the position of the Labour Party over the years.
The entire Russian geopolitical system is crashing. See Armenia, Kyrgyzstan. The implosion will shake us all. Like a collapsing star sucking matter into the black hole
I note that Biden has just given an interview warning Putin against the use of nukes
Essentially, US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.
A thread:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1570832839318605824
Tories like myself would be outraged that suddenly a radical change in gov direction was happening based on the decision of a relatively small group of Trots and agitators who had signed up to Labour.
So I can’t be hypocritical and think that it’s ok for the Tories to do the same because what this new gov is doing is a radical departure from what they were elected on - whether you agree with the direction or not it’s not great.
At the same time, they can only do something about it when it's just won them an election victory.
(In fact, FPTP does work in many important ways to Labour's advantage. Under a proportional system in 1983 and 2010 they would have got around 150/175 seats instead of 200/250, and been in real dispute with the Liberal Democrats for second place.)