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.
Yes, I think an internal power struggle. A fair number of oligarchs are falling from windows etc. Putin must suspect they are planning a coup, and perhaps he is right.
Hard to have a coup with the army both depleted and discredited though.
It remains likely that Putin will cling on in Russia, rather like Saddam did between the Gulf wars.
There has been a risk of nuclear conflict from the beginning, and a Russian defeat does raise that risk to a degree. Russia is not yet defeated of course, though it has now lost two key battles and a third isn't going well for them.
Good morning from Glasgow. Didn't visit the site much this week due to a busy work trip to Romania. Did manage to snatch an hour of sight seeing in both Alba Iulia and Cluj Napoca - both have got a lot for tourists to gawp at.
Honestly glad I have been largely out of the country for the national period of mourning. She died. It's sad. But 24/7 reportage of a queue and of "ooh wasn't she marvellous" is totally over the top.
Left home 7am Monday morning, will get home teatime having collected my Tesla and driven it the long way back via Fort William...
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.
It's one of those 'I've just discovered something for the first time and I'm outraged' reactions even though its universally common and for good reason.
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.
Yeah this sums up my opinion completely. I think that the monarchy serves a purpose, I had huge admiration and affection for HMQ, and it's not clear that the potential alternatives are better but, my God, I feel sorry for the Royal family. I've also realised that the monarchy is a bit like golf - perfectly good in itself but diminished by all the paraphernalia surrounding it.
Good morning from Glasgow. Didn't visit the site much this week due to a busy work trip to Romania. Did manage to snatch an hour of sight seeing in both Alba Iulia and Cluj Napoca - both have got a lot for tourists to gawp at.
Honestly glad I have been largely out of the country for the national period of mourning. She died. It's sad. But 24/7 reportage of a queue and of "ooh wasn't she marvellous" is totally over the top.
Left home 7am Monday morning, will get home teatime having collected my Tesla and driven it the long way back via Fort William...
Driving a Tesla on the mountains around Fort William sounds like a reasonable why to spend a Saturday.
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.
Is that due to the names, or the principle? As surely other nations have some form of civic awards?
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.
The Tory government needs to act immediately on benefits, for instance.
The generally quiet respect shown for the Queen should not in any way delude that the social bonds are very, very frayed at the moment, after 40 years of relentlessly extreme capitalist ideology, by any standard Western metric.
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.
The logical thing to do is for Putin to negotiate a ceasefire where he gets the Donbas with a neutral zone between it and the rest of Ukraine, and perhaps a UN peacekeeping force in it, and there's an internationally supervised referendum in the Donbas for it to be "independent", and he keeps the Crimea, but he withdraws from everywhere else. He can claim a small win and to have "taught them a lesson".
It's a bit shit and I'm not sure why I'd agree to that if I were Ukraine or Zelensky. But it would mean ending the unofficial conflict that's been fought there since 2014 with very marginal gains for Putin.
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.
Yeah this sums up my opinion completely. I think that the monarchy serves a purpose, I had huge admiration and affection for HMQ, and it's not clear that the potential alternatives are better but, my God, I feel sorry for the Royal family. I've also realised that the monarchy is a bit like golf - perfectly good in itself but diminished by all the paraphernalia surrounding it.
Mr. Royale, that's the thing. What's the incentive for Ukraine to accept when they're advancing? The recent graves won't exactly encourage them to lay down arms either.
Made it into the snake. Think it will be 13-14 hours in the end
You could combine with a recent pb theme and read several books on your way....
Was tempted to Do The Queue myself, but the Good Lady Wife has developed a horrible (non-Covid) cold. I didn't fancy being struck down with that in the queue, nor giving up/passing it on to those around me if I did.
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 doubt that.
I suspect the issue of monarchy versus republicanism is a lot less vexing to some of us than Leave versus Remain was.
Brexit affected how we run our day to day lives and it's implementation has made life more difficult for some of us. It was a very practical issue, certainly for those of us who were either EU enthusiasts (very, very few) or those of us who worked out that the alternative to the EU was somewhat worse (nearly 48% of the population).
Republicanism on the other hand has little direct bearing on the price of bread or ease of access back into the UK after a foreign holiday. Those you describe as "Republicans" are more ambivalent and less enthusiastic than you might think. If we were given a vote we might ponder whether we felt the monarchy (particularly all the "hangers-on") was worth our tax pounds, but equally (as in the last Australian referendum) the alternatives on offer need to be considered too. Do I want President Blair or Johnson? No. Do I want titular President Mary Berry, David Beckham, David Attenborough, or Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? Possibly.
On the whole your "Republicans" have been rather accomodating to your sensitivities over the last week. We have sympathised with your loss (and in the case of HMQ, our own) even if we have raised an eyebrow at the wall to wall coverage, the new King's behaviour (certainly compared to how his mother would have conducted herself) and the price of all this pageantry in the face of a cost of living crisis.
Most of us have been empathetic, reflective and respectful to you in particular, and those like you, in your moment of "anger" and grief.
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.
This is very important work and chimes absolutely with my own experience. The UK and US are great countries to be rich in. They are not great countries to be poor in. But perhaps more importantly, they are not great countries to have average incomes in, either. Anyone who has travelled will know that the average person in most EU countries has a far higher standard of living than the average person here. And our new government thinks the answer to this is more of the same voodoo medicine that got us here. Madness.
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.
Whatever, the PM only serves at the say so of the MPs and, if they have a decent majority, their own MPs.
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
It's why these oft-repeated arguments that there's no rational justification for monarchy simply don't stand up.
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.
While I’ve little time for Prof Anya, the argument that the existence of violent homophobia is why you shouldn’t be woke seems a tad ill considered.
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.
Which is the challenge for a government changing leader mid-term.
If it's done for genuine retirement/health reasons, that's one thing. But a lot of the changes are done because PM Tweedledum is doing badly and PM Tweedledee looks like they might do better.
But if the new PM changes policies, there's a problem of mandate. And if they don't change course, there's less gain in changing captain.
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.
Being caught lying was why they considered he was doing a bad job.
Although even then not really. They attempted to move on despite several obvious lies which he had demanded they humiliate themselves to defend.
It was the much belated realization he would never stop demanding such of them.
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 doubt that.
I suspect the issue of monarchy versus republicanism is a lot less vexing to some of us than Leave versus Remain was.
Brexit affected how we run our day to day lives and it's implementation has made life more difficult for some of us. It was a very practical issue, certainly for those of us who were either EU enthusiasts (very, very few) or those of us who worked out that the alternative to the EU was somewhat worse (nearly 48% of the population).
Republicanism on the other hand has little direct bearing on the price of bread or ease of access back into the UK after a foreign holiday. Those you describe as "Republicans" are more ambivalent and less enthusiastic than you might think. If we were given a vote we might ponder whether we felt the monarchy (particularly all the "hangers-on") was worth our tax pounds, but equally (as in the last Australian referendum) the alternatives on offer need to be considered too. Do I want President Blair or Johnson? No. Do I want titular President Mary Berry, David Beckham, David Attenborough, or Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? Possibly.
On the whole your "Republicans" have been rather accomodating to your sensitivities over the last week. We have sympathised with your loss (and in the case of HMQ, our own) even if we have raised an eyebrow at the wall to wall coverage, the new King's behaviour (certainly compared to how his mother would have conducted herself) and the price of all this pageantry in the face of a cost of living crisis.
Most of us have been empathetic, reflective and respectful to you in particular, and those like you, in your moment of "anger" and grief.
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.
Obvs I hope you’re right. And I’m not saying nukes are certain
I do believe we are closer to them being used than at any time since 1945
And the “internal” Russian turbulence is so dangerous because it comes from multiple sources. It won’t be a clean little coup. Violence is breaking out everywhere as Russia tumbles
“Why I side with Armenia 🇦🇲 Personal observations of someone who has lived now for 3 years in Armenia
Since beginning of this week there is a new war between Armenia and Azerbaijan following a large-scale Azerbaijani attack on cities and villages in Armenia.”
“Russia's CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) is effectively collapsing - member states Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are openly fighting each other - Armenia is begging for help that will never arrive, and Kazakhstan is getting security guarantees from China.”
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.
It's one of those 'I've just discovered something for the first time and I'm outraged' reactions even though its universally common and for good reason.
There’s very little media that goes out actually live, without a delay loop and a producer ready to hit the button. Everyone has learned over the years, both that live broadcasts are a target for idiots, and that even well-trained people can screw up under pressure. Newsreaders (not interviews) and sports matches are the closest to live that you’ll see.
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.
The leading candidate in the seat, obviously, Mr TLG. This is even more striking in local elections, when two or three candidates are up for election. And since electors have two or three votes, the leading party grabs the lot.
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.
I only hear about Twitter indirectly, on here mostly. I have the impression that Twitter is where people go to find things to disagree with. I suppose this site serves the same purpose for me. Perhaps you should submit a monarchist thread header - getting your impressions from the queue (or is that The Queue?) would be interesting.
Fine bright day here. I see the BBC's website has cut down the amount of space devoted to the Great Mourning.
I say "roll on Tuesday"!
Amen to that. I have no problem at all in paying tribute to a woman who was a national institution, giving her whole life in service to it.
But - and it's an increasingly big but - I find the whole circus around the monarchy to be increasingly backwards and embarrassing to our nation. Facile and stupid arguments about whether Andrew or Harry should be allowed to wear military uniform, endless attacks on Megan Markle for her crimes of being a black American, the row about William being made Prince of Wales - enough already.
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.
The Tory government needs to act immediately on benefits, for instance.
The generally quiet respect shown for the Queen should not in any way delude that the social bonds are very, very frayed at the moment, after 40 years of relentlessly extreme capitalist ideology, by any standard Western metric.
The new cabinet seems to believe in trickledown economics, though as the article points out there is little correlation between growth and income inequality.
The only trickledown will be when they piss themselves laughing.
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.
Is that due to the names, or the principle? As surely other nations have some form of civic awards?
Both the names and the principle. For example peerages and knighthoods are anachronisms and part of the dreadful class system and should go. The MBE and OBE are fine in principal but need their names bringing up to date.
The Canadians (as an example) have the Order of Canada and recipients get to put OC after their names. I have no issues with that sort of award.
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.
Obvs I hope you’re right. And I’m not saying nukes are certain
I do believe we are closer to them being used than at any time since 1945
And the “internal” Russian turbulence is so dangerous because it comes from multiple sources. It won’t be a clean little coup. Violence is breaking out everywhere as Russia tumbles
“Why I side with Armenia 🇦🇲 Personal observations of someone who has lived now for 3 years in Armenia
Since beginning of this week there is a new war between Armenia and Azerbaijan following a large-scale Azerbaijani attack on cities and villages in Armenia.”
“Russia's CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) is effectively collapsing - member states Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are openly fighting each other - Armenia is begging for help that will never arrive, and Kazakhstan is getting security guarantees from China.”
I suspect, in exchange, China is taking first option on Kazakh gas and oil. A double blow to Putin if so.
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
You and Casino have constructed this imaginary culture war. I don't believe for one moment in your case, you care one jot for this fantasy, you are too busy enjoying good food, fine wine and dusky maidens, but Casino does, and he can get very excitable when you push his buttons.
As an aside, I was flicking through some old psych textbooks (20 years old) and found a fantastic line in one to the effect that it was wrong to use male pronouns when describing a certain type of person (I forget the job). The book continued that while this did reflect reality (the majority of people in X role were men) the reason [they know through psychic powers] was bigotry/sexism/bias.
So, accurately reflecting reality was deemed indicative of sexist bias. And this was 20 years ago.
For that matter, feminist psychology sought to 'correct' for the typical assumption that a standard person was male, and then black feminist psychology was born, and etc.
That cycle of atomisation, plus (perhaps even more so) the fetish for constantly creating new conditions to pathologise human behaviour, were among the least healthy things about psychology. It was riddled with politics.
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
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.
The leading candidate in the seat, obviously, Mr TLG. This is even more striking in local elections, when two or three candidates are up for election. And since electors have two or three votes, the leading party grabs the lot.
What's amusing is when the leading party tops the vote by loads but for some reason didnt find enough candidates and so doesnt grab the lot.
Mr. Pete, was it Mr. Leon or Mr. Royale who constructed the kneeling police, or the desire of the former Met Commissioner to explicitly have an anti-white hiring practice?
The culture was cooked up and prosecuted by the left, who are aghast that the right have the temerity to actually disagree with it.
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
Would you be happier if it said "Caution: REALLY hot water"? Or "Sorry: tepid water"?
I suspect it is the work of the liability lawyers....
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.
Is that due to the names, or the principle? As surely other nations have some form of civic awards?
Both the names and the principle. For example peerages and knighthoods are anachronisms and part of the dreadful class system and should go. The MBE and OBE are fine in principal but need their names bringing up to date.
The Canadians (as an example) have the Order of Canada and recipients get to put OC after their names. I have no issues with that sort of award.
Yes. Public awards for gallantry or service are fine! Just not CBE or BEM or the various different levels of knighthood. Get rid of all that.
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
You and Casino have constructed this imaginary culture war. I don't believe for one moment in your case, you care one jot for this fantasy, you are too busy enjoying good food, fine wine and dusky maidens, but Casino does, and he can get very excitable when you push his buttons.
If only the culture war was imaginary. That would be great
I find it difficult to summon up enthusiasm either way for the monarchy, or for a republic. It hardly affects me ... they are an economic burden of sorts, but set against that, they bring in a shed load of tourist revenue.
I acknowledge I'm out of step with many. The most anti are the left wing activists who fInd everything politicaL The most pro are far more diverse, but just as enthusiastic.
The arguments pass me by.
As for Putin ... It serves him right for being an activist, that's the position you often end up in.
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.
This is very important work and chimes absolutely with my own experience. The UK and US are great countries to be rich in. They are not great countries to be poor in. But perhaps more importantly, they are not great countries to have average incomes in, either. Anyone who has travelled will know that the average person in most EU countries has a far higher standard of living than the average person here. And our new government thinks the answer to this is more of the same voodoo medicine that got us here. Madness.
It's interesting seeing the responses. Even here, there's been some messenger-shooting, or attempts to unpick details.
Which is odd, because it does chime with people's experience of visiting not-Britain. It also matches the sense that 2016-9 was driven by the feeling that Britain wasn't delivering a good life for lots of its citizens. (Right target, possibly wrong culprit fingered.)
Even the Truss-Kwarteng prescription- City reptiles may not do much for the UK as a whole, but we need their taxes- speaks of a certain weakness.
So before starting on solutions, how do we collectively accept there is a problem without Talking Britain Down?
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.
Is that due to the names, or the principle? As surely other nations have some form of civic awards?
Both the names and the principle. For example peerages and knighthoods are anachronisms and part of the dreadful class system and should go. The MBE and OBE are fine in principal but need their names bringing up to date.
The Canadians (as an example) have the Order of Canada and recipients get to put OC after their names. I have no issues with that sort of award.
So you're not against the principle at all, but against the methodology (ie who gives them and what called).
Peerages are a little different as unlike honours they are not mere baubles, they actually come with albeit limited authority.
It's why if we have peerages there should be firm obligations - when it was commented on months ago it was noted Lebedev for instance had made no contributions whatsoever.
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.
The Tory government needs to act immediately on benefits, for instance.
The generally quiet respect shown for the Queen should not in any way delude that the social bonds are very, very frayed at the moment, after 40 years of relentlessly extreme capitalist ideology, by any standard Western metric.
The new cabinet seems to believe in trickledown economics, though as the article points out there is little correlation between growth and income inequality.
The only trickledown will be when they piss themselves laughing.
As an economist, I would like to point out that "trickledown economics" is a theory that plays no role in economic models and receives no empirical support, in fact has no role in economics at all. It is purely a PR term used to justify policies that benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
Since McDonalds got sued for millions after someone burned themselves with coffee, and successfully argued that no-one told them it was hot.
The issues around the (probably averted) US rail strike haven’t had much discussion in the UK. The rail workers’ modest claims should be seen in the context of US rail, thanks to bulk goods transport, being very profitable indeed. https://twitter.com/greenhousenyt/status/1570934946243694592
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.
This is very important work and chimes absolutely with my own experience. The UK and US are great countries to be rich in. They are not great countries to be poor in. But perhaps more importantly, they are not great countries to have average incomes in, either. Anyone who has travelled will know that the average person in most EU countries has a far higher standard of living than the average person here. And our new government thinks the answer to this is more of the same voodoo medicine that got us here. Madness.
It's interesting seeing the responses. Even here, there's been some messenger-shooting, or attempts to unpick details.
Which is odd, because it does chime with people's experience of visiting not-Britain. It also matches the sense that 2016-9 was driven by the feeling that Britain wasn't delivering a good life for lots of its citizens. (Right target, possibly wrong culprit fingered.)
Even the Truss-Kwarteng prescription- City reptiles may not do much for the UK as a whole, but we need their taxes- speaks of a certain weakness.
So before starting on solutions, how do we collectively accept there is a problem without Talking Britain Down?
I think we have to see it as letting ourselves down rather than a Britain is in inevitable decline kind of way. The latter is an exaggeration as we're still a good place to be, and if pared with over simplistic association with recent political choices it provokes an instinctive reaction.
Instead we have to accept a lot of things dont work as they should and we have the means to do better, it's not inevitable.
I was thinking the other day I'd really respect someone trying to be rejected to my local town council if they went 'this place is shit, and I hope to help fix that' rather than how great it is.
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
You and Casino have constructed this imaginary culture war. I don't believe for one moment in your case, you care one jot for this fantasy, you are too busy enjoying good food, fine wine and dusky maidens, but Casino does, and he can get very excitable when you push his buttons.
It does seem that they approve of a homophobic twitter mob attacking the Nigerian Prof for the temerity of expressing anti-monarchy views. It seems an odd cause to rally to.
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
Since McDonalds got sued for millions after someone burned themselves with coffee, and successfully argued that no-one told them it was hot.
I forgot about that. Surely it's possible to have a courts system to tell malicious and stupid claimants to go forth and multiply so that the rest of us can get on with our lives?
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
You and Casino have constructed this imaginary culture war. I don't believe for one moment in your case, you care one jot for this fantasy, you are too busy enjoying good food, fine wine and dusky maidens, but Casino does, and he can get very excitable when you push his buttons.
If only the culture war was imaginary. That would be great
It is not
I haven’t seen any evidence that people give a shit about the culture war raging in the pages of the Spectator and Guardian and certain corners of the internet. I have seen evidence that people are worried about making ends meet and generally are pretty tolerant and want to get along with each other.
Fine bright day here. I see the BBC's website has cut down the amount of space devoted to the Great Mourning.
I say "roll on Tuesday"!
Amen to that. I have no problem at all in paying tribute to a woman who was a national institution, giving her whole life in service to it.
But - and it's an increasingly big but - I find the whole circus around the monarchy to be increasingly backwards and embarrassing to our nation. Facile and stupid arguments about whether Andrew or Harry should be allowed to wear military uniform, endless attacks on Megan Markle for her crimes of being a black American, the row about William being made Prince of Wales - enough already.
The uniform issues (ironically, the debate revolves around the two people who have EARNED the right to wear it) and Harry and Meghan being uninvited from this and that by the Field Marshal is rather tiresome.
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.
While I’ve little time for Prof Anya, the argument that the existence of violent homophobia is why you shouldn’t be woke seems a tad ill considered.
Some people seem to find it strange that those at the bottom of the social pile are fed up with being stomped on by those at the top.
As an aside, I was flicking through some old psych textbooks (20 years old) and found a fantastic line in one to the effect that it was wrong to use male pronouns when describing a certain type of person (I forget the job). The book continued that while this did reflect reality (the majority of people in X role were men) the reason [they know through psychic powers] was bigotry/sexism/bias.
So, accurately reflecting reality was deemed indicative of sexist bias. And this was 20 years ago.
For that matter, feminist psychology sought to 'correct' for the typical assumption that a standard person was male, and then black feminist psychology was born, and etc.
That cycle of atomisation, plus (perhaps even more so) the fetish for constantly creating new conditions to pathologise human behaviour, were among the least healthy things about psychology. It was riddled with politics.
It's not "accurately reflecting reality" to use male pronouns where "the majority of people in X role were men".
If you cannot see that you are simply ignoring reality to suit your own bias.
Do you think anyone ever began an address to a meeting at which Margaret Thatcher was present with "Gentlemen, ..."?
The latest conspiracy theory is that the Queen isn't in the coffin and therefore the Queue is a massive scam.
People are getting really quite desperate to undermine it. I suppose it makes sense - the Queue is incomprehensible to some people and it's quite painful to see everything you believe about the UK being disproved.
I'd suggest an narrow focus on Andrew would be more effective for republicans. Or just wait till the coronation.
Side note: that protestor was very lucky the police got to him first.
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.
The logical thing to do is for Putin to negotiate a ceasefire where he gets the Donbas with a neutral zone between it and the rest of Ukraine, and perhaps a UN peacekeeping force in it, and there's an internationally supervised referendum in the Donbas for it to be "independent", and he keeps the Crimea, but he withdraws from everywhere else. He can claim a small win and to have "taught them a lesson".
It's a bit shit and I'm not sure why I'd agree to that if I were Ukraine or Zelensky. But it would mean ending the unofficial conflict that's been fought there since 2014 with very marginal gains for Putin.
Long-term if Russia wants to hold Crimea it needs Kherson oblast, because of the canal, and also Zaporizhzhia oblast, for the land bridge to Russia via the Donbas.
I don't think the Russian army is now capable of defending the most minimal compromise that Russia could settle for, so I think the war will be fought to its conclusion. Putin's only hope is that NATO supplies of ammunition and equipment come to an end, as that would lead to a defeat of the Ukrainian army, at least as a large-scale fighting force.
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?
IMO that's too narrow. All humans and human communities have rituals, whether they say they do or not. Just part of the punctuation of life.
Gay pride is a ritual. Organised humanists have a retual to deny being a religious viewpoint, when it fulfils the same role. Sports occasions are full of ritual. Ritual happens when a cat or a dog dies, or a child gets exam results.
In response to @Dynamo , the hereditary rulers of North Korea have proclaimed themselves atheist in an atheist state. There is no shortage of others. Pretty much all dictatorships have an hereditary aspect in that wealth looted from the country is directed to family members and children. Putin's certainly does.
Mr. Pete, was it Mr. Leon or Mr. Royale who constructed the kneeling police, or the desire of the former Met Commissioner to explicitly have an anti-white hiring practice?
The culture was cooked up and prosecuted by the left, who are aghast that the right have the temerity to actually disagree with it.
Oh come off it Morris, and when we produce our very own Anders Brevik, we will regret the fuss we made over nothing.
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 doubt that.
I suspect the issue of monarchy versus republicanism is a lot less vexing to some of us than Leave versus Remain was.
Brexit affected how we run our day to day lives and it's implementation has made life more difficult for some of us. It was a very practical issue, certainly for those of us who were either EU enthusiasts (very, very few) or those of us who worked out that the alternative to the EU was somewhat worse (nearly 48% of the population).
Republicanism on the other hand has little direct bearing on the price of bread or ease of access back into the UK after a foreign holiday. Those you describe as "Republicans" are more ambivalent and less enthusiastic than you might think. If we were given a vote we might ponder whether we felt the monarchy (particularly all the "hangers-on") was worth our tax pounds, but equally (as in the last Australian referendum) the alternatives on offer need to be considered too. Do I want President Blair or Johnson? No. Do I want titular President Mary Berry, David Beckham, David Attenborough, or Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? Possibly.
On the whole your "Republicans" have been rather accomodating to your sensitivities over the last week. We have sympathised with your loss (and in the case of HMQ, our own) even if we have raised an eyebrow at the wall to wall coverage, the new King's behaviour (certainly compared to how his mother would have conducted herself) and the price of all this pageantry in the face of a cost of living crisis.
Most of us have been empathetic, reflective and respectful to you in particular, and those like you, in your moment of "anger" and grief.
Excellent post.
I normally agree with CR on most things but, as a Leaver and a practical monarchist who has been in mourning this week, I think he is wrong on this and no small amount of insulting to all those Remainers and Republicans (sometimes two quite different sets of people) who have generally behaved impeccably over the last week or more.
Yes, there have been those who have been crass about things - but mostly they are the professional contrarians and trolls rather than the Remainers or Republicans.
As I wrote a few days ago, I remain very impressed and grateful to Republicans who have shown a huge amount of consideration to those who are mourning even whilst retaining their beliefs in the need for eventual change.
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.
Bollocks. As usual a negative post and not based on fact but prejudice. In my view awards should only be given for courage and voluntary work and social status should be eliminated from the level of award and the level of award be based entirely on merit not who you are.
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
Since McDonalds got sued for millions after someone burned themselves with coffee, and successfully argued that no-one told them it was hot.
I forgot about that. Surely it's possible to have a courts system to tell malicious and stupid claimants to go forth and multiply so that the rest of us can get on with our lives?
I guess where does one draw the line st needing to protect the stupid at leart a little? Without making it so even the non stupid have no recourse to claim?
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.
As Michael Faraday said: "I must remain plain Michael Faraday to the last."
This reminds me there is an inevitably very incomplete listing of declined honours in Wikipedia - because many will have been offered and declined in secret, it cannot be complete. Interestingly, some object to honours tout court, and others only to the political/corruption aspect, as perhaps might be expected from such a diverse lot.
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.
Is that due to the names, or the principle? As surely other nations have some form of civic awards?
Both the names and the principle. For example peerages and knighthoods are anachronisms and part of the dreadful class system and should go. The MBE and OBE are fine in principal but need their names bringing up to date.
The Canadians (as an example) have the Order of Canada and recipients get to put OC after their names. I have no issues with that sort of award.
So you're not against the principle at all, but against the methodology (ie who gives them and what called).
Peerages are a little different as unlike honours they are not mere baubles, they actually come with albeit limited authority.
It's why if we have peerages there should be firm obligations - when it was commented on months ago it was noted Lebedev for instance had made no contributions whatsoever.
I think peerages should go, especially if we ever get rid of the Lords as an upper chamber.
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.
Is that due to the names, or the principle? As surely other nations have some form of civic awards?
Both the names and the principle. For example peerages and knighthoods are anachronisms and part of the dreadful class system and should go. The MBE and OBE are fine in principal but need their names bringing up to date.
The Canadians (as an example) have the Order of Canada and recipients get to put OC after their names. I have no issues with that sort of award.
Yes. Public awards for gallantry or service are fine! Just not CBE or BEM or the various different levels of knighthood. Get rid of all that.
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.
This is very important work and chimes absolutely with my own experience. The UK and US are great countries to be rich in. They are not great countries to be poor in. But perhaps more importantly, they are not great countries to have average incomes in, either. Anyone who has travelled will know that the average person in most EU countries has a far higher standard of living than the average person here. And our new government thinks the answer to this is more of the same voodoo medicine that got us here. Madness.
If you want to find out where you fit in on those percentile charts:
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.
Is that due to the names, or the principle? As surely other nations have some form of civic awards?
Both the names and the principle. For example peerages and knighthoods are anachronisms and part of the dreadful class system and should go. The MBE and OBE are fine in principal but need their names bringing up to date.
The Canadians (as an example) have the Order of Canada and recipients get to put OC after their names. I have no issues with that sort of award.
So you're not against the principle at all, but against the methodology (ie who gives them and what called).
Peerages are a little different as unlike honours they are not mere baubles, they actually come with albeit limited authority.
It's why if we have peerages there should be firm obligations - when it was commented on months ago it was noted Lebedev for instance had made no contributions whatsoever.
I think peerages should go, especially if we ever get rid of the Lords as an upper chamber.
Peerages confound the honours system with the political-patronage system - to the disadvantage of one and the concealment of the other.
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.
This is very important work and chimes absolutely with my own experience. The UK and US are great countries to be rich in. They are not great countries to be poor in. But perhaps more importantly, they are not great countries to have average incomes in, either. Anyone who has travelled will know that the average person in most EU countries has a far higher standard of living than the average person here. And our new government thinks the answer to this is more of the same voodoo medicine that got us here. Madness.
It's interesting seeing the responses. Even here, there's been some messenger-shooting, or attempts to unpick details.
Which is odd, because it does chime with people's experience of visiting not-Britain. It also matches the sense that 2016-9 was driven by the feeling that Britain wasn't delivering a good life for lots of its citizens. (Right target, possibly wrong culprit fingered.)
Even the Truss-Kwarteng prescription- City reptiles may not do much for the UK as a whole, but we need their taxes- speaks of a certain weakness.
So before starting on solutions, how do we collectively accept there is a problem without Talking Britain Down?
I think we have to see it as letting ourselves down rather than a Britain is in inevitable decline kind of way. The latter is an exaggeration as we're still a good place to be, and if pared with over simplistic association with recent political choices it provokes an instinctive reaction.
Instead we have to accept a lot of things dont work as they should and we have the means to do better, it's not inevitable.
I was thinking the other day I'd really respect someone trying to be rejected to my local town council if they went 'this place is shit, and I hope to help fix that' rather than how great it is.
Great typo! I suspect they would indeed be rejected with that campaign slogan.
Better to reverse it: "Make America Great Again" is a very effective slogan because it implies "this place is shit, we can fix it" while using positive words. "Take back control" has similar empowering sentiments.
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
Since McDonalds got sued for millions after someone burned themselves with coffee, and successfully argued that no-one told them it was hot.
I forgot about that. Surely it's possible to have a courts system to tell malicious and stupid claimants to go forth and multiply so that the rest of us can get on with our lives?
I guess where does one draw the line st needing to protect the stupid at leart a little? Without making it so even the non stupid have no recourse to claim?
TBF one can be very unfamiliar with some of this kit if one has not seen it before. I had no idea, when visiting a London friend in his Camden home, that the tap thing at the sink would emit boiling water - very lucky not to get scalded.
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.
Obvs I hope you’re right. And I’m not saying nukes are certain
I do believe we are closer to them being used than at any time since 1945
And the “internal” Russian turbulence is so dangerous because it comes from multiple sources. It won’t be a clean little coup. Violence is breaking out everywhere as Russia tumbles
“Why I side with Armenia 🇦🇲 Personal observations of someone who has lived now for 3 years in Armenia
Since beginning of this week there is a new war between Armenia and Azerbaijan following a large-scale Azerbaijani attack on cities and villages in Armenia.”
“Russia's CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) is effectively collapsing - member states Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are openly fighting each other - Armenia is begging for help that will never arrive, and Kazakhstan is getting security guarantees from China.”
The conflict between Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, makes me think that a more likely use of nuclear weapons might be as part of a Russian civil war, rather than as an attempt to stave off a Russian defeat in Ukraine.
That would obviously be a Very Bad Thing, but at least Ukraine would mostly be an aghast onlooker along with the rest of Europe.
These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.
A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.
Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King
Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...
Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would. Not out of any love for any individual - Prince Andrew can go jump in the Serpentine tomorrow - but out of love for Britain and British history which is so intimately bound up with our status as a constitutional monarchy. If you tear that away you destroy something exquisite and unique and alive, like ripping out the nervous system of an animal and expecting it to be fine with shop-bought electronics as a replacement
Fuck that. Fuck republicanism
Ah yes because people in republics like the USA are so docile and unwilling to fight for their country, aren't they?
Britain has evolved over the years. If we remove the monarchy, we'll still be Britain, or England, and continue to evolve.
In a small way I admire your persistence and commitment to your misguided cause but I have to tell you you lost the argument years ago. Probably about 60 years ago.
And even before that the long sweep of human development had moved us inexorably towards greater respect for every individual.
Had it existed 200 years ago, PB.com would have had posters arguing against the blurring of the distinction between the gentry and the common people. Those posters would have been equally whistling in the wind.
Mr. Pete, Breivik was roundly condemned for his far right, fascist murderous lunacy... not sure what point you're attempting to make.
Fascism and communism are wretched. The right is far happier to condemn the madness of fascism than the left is the evil of socialism, hence why Corbyn was on Labour's backbenches.
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.
While I’ve little time for Prof Anya, the argument that the existence of violent homophobia is why you shouldn’t be woke seems a tad ill considered.
Some people seem to find it strange that those at the bottom of the social pile are fed up with being stomped on by those at the top.
Prof Anya is at the top of society, not the bottom.
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
To cover themselves if some twunk scalds their hand and tries to sue.
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 doubt that.
I suspect the issue of monarchy versus republicanism is a lot less vexing to some of us than Leave versus Remain was.
Brexit affected how we run our day to day lives and it's implementation has made life more difficult for some of us. It was a very practical issue, certainly for those of us who were either EU enthusiasts (very, very few) or those of us who worked out that the alternative to the EU was somewhat worse (nearly 48% of the population).
Republicanism on the other hand has little direct bearing on the price of bread or ease of access back into the UK after a foreign holiday. Those you describe as "Republicans" are more ambivalent and less enthusiastic than you might think. If we were given a vote we might ponder whether we felt the monarchy (particularly all the "hangers-on") was worth our tax pounds, but equally (as in the last Australian referendum) the alternatives on offer need to be considered too. Do I want President Blair or Johnson? No. Do I want titular President Mary Berry, David Beckham, David Attenborough, or Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? Possibly.
On the whole your "Republicans" have been rather accomodating to your sensitivities over the last week. We have sympathised with your loss (and in the case of HMQ, our own) even if we have raised an eyebrow at the wall to wall coverage, the new King's behaviour (certainly compared to how his mother would have conducted herself) and the price of all this pageantry in the face of a cost of living crisis.
Most of us have been empathetic, reflective and respectful to you in particular, and those like you, in your moment of "anger" and grief.
Excellent post.
I normally agree with CR on most things but, as a Leaver and a practical monarchist who has been in mourning this week, I think he is wrong on this and no small amount of insulting to all those Remainers and Republicans (sometimes two quite different sets of people) who have generally behaved impeccably over the last week or more.
Yes, there have been those who have been crass about things - but mostly they are the professional contrarians and trolls rather than the Remainers or Republicans.
As I wrote a few days ago, I remain very impressed and grateful to Republicans who have shown a huge amount of consideration to those who are mourning even whilst retaining their beliefs in the need for eventual change.
I think that’s fair - there has been very little of the class or education based sneering some of the unreconciled Remainers indulged in post-Brexit. Once the dust settles it will be interesting to see how the population splits into “Monarchists”, “Queenists” and (I’m sure there will be some) “Kingists”.
For any who missed it first time round I found this very thoughtful:
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
Since McDonalds got sued for millions after someone burned themselves with coffee, and successfully argued that no-one told them it was hot.
I forgot about that. Surely it's possible to have a courts system to tell malicious and stupid claimants to go forth and multiply so that the rest of us can get on with our lives?
In the case in question, the claimant was a woman who suffered severe burns of a very unpleasant nature from coffee served very close to boiling point. You can certainly argue if you wish that she was foolish, but malicious she was not.
Couple of pieces of interesting nonsense. Yesterday on R4 on Evan Davis' programme he stated a poll said 50% of people who say they are Christians don't believe in God. Only caught it in passing so don't know context. Odd
Poll of those queuing. 56% Conservative voting, but also overwhelming Remain and very liberal in views and agree people should be able to protest at events. Assume just representative of South East.
Another hotel breakfast observation: Haggis is a better alternative to black pudding.
My top tip for hotel breakfasts - Wear yesterday's shirt down to breakfast, in case of beans- or sauce- related mishaps. Then change into a fresh shirt afterwards.
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.
Is that due to the names, or the principle? As surely other nations have some form of civic awards?
Both the names and the principle. For example peerages and knighthoods are anachronisms and part of the dreadful class system and should go. The MBE and OBE are fine in principal but need their names bringing up to date.
The Canadians (as an example) have the Order of Canada and recipients get to put OC after their names. I have no issues with that sort of award.
So you're not against the principle at all, but against the methodology (ie who gives them and what called).
Peerages are a little different as unlike honours they are not mere baubles, they actually come with albeit limited authority.
It's why if we have peerages there should be firm obligations - when it was commented on months ago it was noted Lebedev for instance had made no contributions whatsoever.
I think peerages should go, especially if we ever get rid of the Lords as an upper chamber.
Sure, but until that happens it should be made to work better.
Once more:
No-one from the Commons to be made a peer without a gap of at least 10-15 years. No-one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party in the last 5 years shall be eligible for an honour or a peerage for at least 10 years. Peers must contribute to a minimum number of debates or votes if they are physically capable. If they do not they lose both their voting right and the right to call themselves Lords.
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.
The Tory government needs to act immediately on benefits, for instance.
The generally quiet respect shown for the Queen should not in any way delude that the social bonds are very, very frayed at the moment, after 40 years of relentlessly extreme capitalist ideology, by any standard Western metric.
The new cabinet seems to believe in trickledown economics, though as the article points out there is little correlation between growth and income inequality.
The only trickledown will be when they piss themselves laughing.
As an economist, I would like to point out that "trickledown economics" is a theory that plays no role in economic models and receives no empirical support, in fact has no role in economics at all. It is purely a PR term used to justify policies that benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.
The term is never used by anyone on the right. It's a strawman erected in order to criticise the economic policies practised by right wing governments.
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
Since McDonalds got sued for millions after someone burned themselves with coffee, and successfully argued that no-one told them it was hot.
I forgot about that. Surely it's possible to have a courts system to tell malicious and stupid claimants to go forth and multiply so that the rest of us can get on with our lives?
I'm not sure we want people who are that stupid to multiply.
Mind you, I can understand it may have been a surprise for McDonald's coffee to be hot.
Mr. Pointer, the Woke nonsense categorises people by race and judges them on that, and for the sins of the forefathers. That's not greater respect for every individual, it's blatant bigotry and reducing human beings to a colour chart of virtue and vice.
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.
This is very important work and chimes absolutely with my own experience. The UK and US are great countries to be rich in. They are not great countries to be poor in. But perhaps more importantly, they are not great countries to have average incomes in, either. Anyone who has travelled will know that the average person in most EU countries has a far higher standard of living than the average person here. And our new government thinks the answer to this is more of the same voodoo medicine that got us here. Madness.
It's interesting seeing the responses. Even here, there's been some messenger-shooting, or attempts to unpick details.
Which is odd, because it does chime with people's experience of visiting not-Britain. It also matches the sense that 2016-9 was driven by the feeling that Britain wasn't delivering a good life for lots of its citizens. (Right target, possibly wrong culprit fingered.)
Even the Truss-Kwarteng prescription- City reptiles may not do much for the UK as a whole, but we need their taxes- speaks of a certain weakness.
So before starting on solutions, how do we collectively accept there is a problem without Talking Britain Down?
I think we have to see it as letting ourselves down rather than a Britain is in inevitable decline kind of way. The latter is an exaggeration as we're still a good place to be, and if pared with over simplistic association with recent political choices it provokes an instinctive reaction.
Instead we have to accept a lot of things dont work as they should and we have the means to do better, it's not inevitable.
I was thinking the other day I'd really respect someone trying to be rejected to my local town council if they went 'this place is shit, and I hope to help fix that' rather than how great it is.
Great typo! I suspect they would indeed be rejected with that campaign slogan.
Better to reverse it: "Make America Great Again" is a very effective slogan because it implies "this place is shit, we can fix it" while using positive words. "Take back control" has similar empowering sentiments.
Another hotel breakfast observation: Haggis is a better alternative to black pudding.
My top tip for hotel breakfasts - Wear yesterday's shirt down to breakfast, in case of beans- or sauce- related mishaps. Then change into a fresh shirt afterwards.
Better yet, if you eat before showering, you’ll get to the front of the queue, and are prepared to deal with the even most disastrous culinary accidents.
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?
IMO that's too narrow. All humans and human communities have rituals, whether they say they do or not. Just part of the punctuation of life.
Gay pride is a ritual. Organised humanists have a ritual to deny being a religious viewpoint, when it fulfils the same role. Sports occasions are full of ritual. Ritual happens when a cat or a dog dies, or a child gets exam results.
In response to @Dynamo , the hereditary rulers of North Korea have proclaimed themselves atheist in an atheist state. There is no shortage of others. Pretty much all dictatorships have an hereditary aspect in that wealth looted from the country is directed to family members and children. Putin's certainly does.
As a further note (having missed the 6 minutes) there's a ritual performance going on now. As a country we are reminding ourselves of our constitution, which is important because it is distributed rather than shoehorned into a single document with a timestamp.
Any political philosophy / ideology has it's ritual proclamations and denunciations, whether it's "Up the RA", singing the Red Flag, or Jerusalem, or holding a Glee Club event to remember old values and not to take yourselves too seriously.
There's a current ritual performative outrage amongst some republican types, which has been interesting. And ritual articles in some newspapers demanding that 'monarchism' (a ritual label to deprecate something they want to demonstrate they disagree with) being pushed down their throats, and so on.
These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.
A Yougov poll in the last few days has 64% wanting to keep the monarchy, with the monarchy miles ahead with Tories and LDs and even ahead amongst Labour voters and under 25s.
Another poll has 63% thinking Charles will make a good King
Momentary hiccups, given the current situation. See what it is like in a year.
The thought of President Johnson or President Blair will be enough to make little difference. Having a royal family is a key part of British identity
Hmm, you're suddenly admitting your great hero for the last few years is, erm ...
Royal Families are profoundly un-British. Goes against the self-respect, love of freedom, the Cromwellian tradition, Nonconformism that made modern Britain. A supposed English patriot such as you would indubitably go back to the proper old tradition of the elected Kings of Anglo-Saxon times.
Rubbish, we are not America, America is a freedom loving, ultra capitalist nation founded by Puritan nonconformists and with a strong Cromwellian tradition against monarchy and aristocracy that led to the American revolution. The UK is a heritage and tradition loving nation that loves its NHS and has a significant welfare state to moderate the capitalist economy and which loves its royal family too. Indeed so much we returned to a monarchy as soon as we could after Cromwell
Also, people would FIGHT for a monarchy. I would.
Very few people in a military context kill (and die) because they love the royal family, the country or the PM.
The only reliable way to make people do it is unit cohesion hence why military training so intensely suppresses the individual identity in favour of the group.
" It was riddled with politics." But you have to be kind to psychology, it was never a 'real' science. I always wondered how you can gain a PhD in arty subjects. Opinions must trump facts because facts are hard to obtain.
Even theoretical physicists nowadays can write books of conjecture, ones that can never be proved, or even worse, falsified.
As Huxley said ... Science is the 'slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.'
Incidentally, why does the hot water dispenser in the hotel breakfast have "CAUTION: HOT WATER" on it. It's an urn for hot water. Of course it has hot water inside it. Why do we need to be warned about something we are expecting?
Since McDonalds got sued for millions after someone burned themselves with coffee, and successfully argued that no-one told them it was hot.
I forgot about that. Surely it's possible to have a courts system to tell malicious and stupid claimants to go forth and multiply so that the rest of us can get on with our lives?
I think that’s the most naive thing I’ve read in weeks. Right now two charities are arguing about the definition of a lesbian.
As much as I agree with you, it’s pretty obvious why everything is labelled to deter the stupid/malicious.
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.
The Tory government needs to act immediately on benefits, for instance.
The generally quiet respect shown for the Queen should not in any way delude that the social bonds are very, very frayed at the moment, after 40 years of relentlessly extreme capitalist ideology, by any standard Western metric.
The new cabinet seems to believe in trickledown economics, though as the article points out there is little correlation between growth and income inequality.
The only trickledown will be when they piss themselves laughing.
As an economist, I would like to point out that "trickledown economics" is a theory that plays no role in economic models and receives no empirical support, in fact has no role in economics at all. It is purely a PR term used to justify policies that benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.
The term is never used by anyone on the right. It's a strawman erected in order to criticise the economic policies practised by right wing governments.
It’s convenient short hand that elegantly highlights the fundamental flaw in an ideology that has repeatedly been proven not to work in the real world.
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.
The Tory government needs to act immediately on benefits, for instance.
The generally quiet respect shown for the Queen should not in any way delude that the social bonds are very, very frayed at the moment, after 40 years of relentlessly extreme capitalist ideology, by any standard Western metric.
The new cabinet seems to believe in trickledown economics, though as the article points out there is little correlation between growth and income inequality.
The only trickledown will be when they piss themselves laughing.
As an economist, I would like to point out that "trickledown economics" is a theory that plays no role in economic models and receives no empirical support, in fact has no role in economics at all. It is purely a PR term used to justify policies that benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.
The term is never used by anyone on the right. It's a strawman erected in order to criticise the economic policies practised by right wing governments.
“The late, great Margaret Thatcher said it better than any of us ever could: Joe Biden to the Democrats will prefer the poor be poor so the rich are less rich,” Donalds said in a press conference Tuesday.
"And yes, trickle-down economics..which does acrually work."
On Sir John Curtice's point about monarchy support.
There are linked but separate questions about the actual future of the monarchy.
One question is: What is the level of support for status quo
Another is: What are the prospects of a party who can win a GE having a monarchy review in its manifesto
Another is: What are the probabilities of any change actually occurring in some time frame
Another is: What alternative, after being scrutinised in detail for years, would stand any chance of being adopted instead.
Let's say polling support for the monarchy drifted as low as 35%. The chances of a party manifesto at GE time supporting monarchy review still remain close to zero. Rendering actual change about Zero% probability
Therefore the monarchy may or may not be popular, but it is safe for the fairly long term.
Mr. Pete, was it Mr. Leon or Mr. Royale who constructed the kneeling police, or the desire of the former Met Commissioner to explicitly have an anti-white hiring practice?
The culture was cooked up and prosecuted by the left, who are aghast that the right have the temerity to actually disagree with it.
Oh come off it Morris, and when we produce our very own Anders Brevik, we will regret the fuss we made over nothing.
If and when we produve our own Anders Brevik it will be precisley because of what Morris describes.
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.
Mr. CD13, psychology varies all the way from essentially biology (I've got a couple of great textbooks of that nature) to sociology ('society' is to blame for everything).
The thing a monarchy offers is continuity and stability. The late Queen, of course, offered that in spades being Monarch for most of her subjects entire lives. It will take time for Charles to get his feet under the table that way and he may not have the time being 73 already.
If I was starting from scratch a monarch would not be a part of the system. It is an anachronism. But it serves the symbolic purpose well enough and I would not be minded to change it.
Comments
Gerrymandering constitutional arrangements to try and benefit themselves in perpetuity is how Labour managed to almost cause the breakup of the UK.
Dicking with the electoral system for perceived advantage is not an edifying approach.
Hard to have a coup with the army both depleted and discredited though.
It remains likely that Putin will cling on in Russia, rather like Saddam did between the Gulf wars.
There has been a risk of nuclear conflict from the beginning, and a Russian defeat does raise that risk to a degree. Russia is not yet defeated of course, though it has now lost two key battles and a third isn't going well for them.
Honestly glad I have been largely out of the country for the national period of mourning. She died. It's sad. But 24/7 reportage of a queue and of "ooh wasn't she marvellous" is totally over the top.
Left home 7am Monday morning, will get home teatime having collected my Tesla and driven it the long way back via Fort William...
I've also realised that the monarchy is a bit like golf - perfectly good in itself but diminished by all the paraphernalia surrounding it.
John Burn-Murdoch
@jburnmurdoch
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 https://ft.com/content/ef265420-45e8-497b-b308-c951baa68945
Essentially, US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.
A thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1570832839318605824
The Tory government needs to act immediately on benefits, for instance.
The generally quiet respect shown for the Queen should not in any way delude that the social bonds are very, very frayed at the moment, after 40 years of relentlessly extreme capitalist ideology, by any standard Western metric.
It's a bit shit and I'm not sure why I'd agree to that if I were Ukraine or Zelensky. But it would mean ending the unofficial conflict that's been fought there since 2014 with very marginal gains for Putin.
Otherwise, it would just be balls.
Was tempted to Do The Queue myself, but the Good Lady Wife has developed a horrible (non-Covid) cold. I didn't fancy being struck down with that in the queue, nor giving up/passing it on to those around me if I did.
I suspect the issue of monarchy versus republicanism is a lot less vexing to some of us than Leave versus Remain was.
Brexit affected how we run our day to day lives and it's implementation has made life more difficult for some of us. It was a very practical issue, certainly for those of us who were either EU enthusiasts (very, very few) or those of us who worked out that the alternative to the EU was somewhat worse (nearly 48% of the population).
Republicanism on the other hand has little direct bearing on the price of bread or ease of access back into the UK after a foreign holiday. Those you describe as "Republicans" are more ambivalent and less enthusiastic than you might think. If we were given a vote we might ponder whether we felt the monarchy (particularly all the "hangers-on") was worth our tax pounds, but equally (as in the last Australian referendum) the alternatives on offer need to be considered too. Do I want President Blair or Johnson? No. Do I want titular President Mary Berry, David Beckham, David Attenborough, or Prince Harry and Meghan Markle? Possibly.
On the whole your "Republicans" have been rather accomodating to your sensitivities over the last week. We have sympathised with your loss (and in the case of HMQ, our own) even if we have raised an eyebrow at the wall to wall coverage, the new King's behaviour (certainly compared to how his mother would have conducted herself) and the price of all this pageantry in the face of a cost of living crisis.
Most of us have been empathetic, reflective and respectful to you in particular, and those like you, in your moment of "anger" and grief.
If it's done for genuine retirement/health reasons, that's one thing. But a lot of the changes are done because PM Tweedledum is doing badly and PM Tweedledee looks like they might do better.
But if the new PM changes policies, there's a problem of mandate. And if they don't change course, there's less gain in changing captain.
Although even then not really. They attempted to move on despite several obvious lies which he had demanded they humiliate themselves to defend.
It was the much belated realization he would never stop demanding such of them.
Fine bright day here.
I see the BBC's website has cut down the amount of space devoted to the Great Mourning.
I say "roll on Tuesday"!
Which is something Wokery loves when it's bashing whites/men (male and pale) but less fond of when the bigotry is off-brand (homophobia).
I do believe we are closer to them being used than at any time since 1945
And the “internal” Russian turbulence is so dangerous because it comes from multiple sources. It won’t be a clean little coup. Violence is breaking out everywhere as Russia tumbles
“Why I side with Armenia 🇦🇲
Personal observations of someone who has lived now for 3 years in Armenia
Since beginning of this week there is a new war between Armenia and Azerbaijan following a large-scale Azerbaijani attack on cities and villages in Armenia.”
https://twitter.com/ricdbergmann/status/1570812636497059841?s=46&t=Y9LwEz4dsI-A_m1sgChIqA
“Russia's CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) is effectively collapsing - member states Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are openly fighting each other - Armenia is begging for help that will never arrive, and Kazakhstan is getting security guarantees from China.”
Horse racing in particular, has actually worked hard to get within a couple of seconds of live, to avoid people distorting betting markets. There have been instances of betting syndicates using drones to try and beat the ‘live’ TV feeds.
https://dronedj.com/2021/01/15/drones-used-at-uk-horse-racing-tracks-to-stack-the-odds/
Perhaps you should submit a monarchist thread header - getting your impressions from the queue (or is that The Queue?) would be interesting.
But - and it's an increasingly big but - I find the whole circus around the monarchy to be increasingly backwards and embarrassing to our nation. Facile and stupid arguments about whether Andrew or Harry should be allowed to wear military uniform, endless attacks on Megan Markle for her crimes of being a black American, the row about William being made Prince of Wales - enough already.
The only trickledown will be when they piss themselves laughing.
The Canadians (as an example) have the Order of Canada and recipients get to put OC after their names. I have no issues with that sort of award.
So, accurately reflecting reality was deemed indicative of sexist bias. And this was 20 years ago.
For that matter, feminist psychology sought to 'correct' for the typical assumption that a standard person was male, and then black feminist psychology was born, and etc.
That cycle of atomisation, plus (perhaps even more so) the fetish for constantly creating new conditions to pathologise human behaviour, were among the least healthy things about psychology. It was riddled with politics.
The culture was cooked up and prosecuted by the left, who are aghast that the right have the temerity to actually disagree with it.
I suspect it is the work of the liability lawyers....
It is not
I acknowledge I'm out of step with many. The most anti are the left wing activists who fInd everything politicaL The most pro are far more diverse, but just as enthusiastic.
The arguments pass me by.
As for Putin ... It serves him right for being an activist, that's the position you often end up in.
Which is odd, because it does chime with people's experience of visiting not-Britain. It also matches the sense that 2016-9 was driven by the feeling that Britain wasn't delivering a good life for lots of its citizens. (Right target, possibly wrong culprit fingered.)
Even the Truss-Kwarteng prescription- City reptiles may not do much for the UK as a whole, but we need their taxes- speaks of a certain weakness.
So before starting on solutions, how do we collectively accept there is a problem without Talking Britain Down?
Peerages are a little different as unlike honours they are not mere baubles, they actually come with albeit limited authority.
It's why if we have peerages there should be firm obligations - when it was commented on months ago it was noted Lebedev for instance had made no contributions whatsoever.
The rail workers’ modest claims should be seen in the context of US rail, thanks to bulk goods transport, being very profitable indeed.
https://twitter.com/greenhousenyt/status/1570934946243694592
And it should also be noted that the economic consequences of a strike would have been considerable.
https://www.ft.com/content/e78a3f84-6a69-4697-ab25-c35e332f0cef
Instead we have to accept a lot of things dont work as they should and we have the means to do better, it's not inevitable.
I was thinking the other day I'd really respect someone trying to be rejected to my local town council if they went 'this place is shit, and I hope to help fix that' rather than how great it is.
If you cannot see that you are simply ignoring reality to suit your own bias.
Do you think anyone ever began an address to a meeting at which Margaret Thatcher was present with "Gentlemen, ..."?
People are getting really quite desperate to undermine it. I suppose it makes sense - the Queue is incomprehensible to some people and it's quite painful to see everything you believe about the UK being disproved.
I'd suggest an narrow focus on Andrew would be more effective for republicans. Or just wait till the coronation.
Side note: that protestor was very lucky the police got to him first.
I don't think the Russian army is now capable of defending the most minimal compromise that Russia could settle for, so I think the war will be fought to its conclusion. Putin's only hope is that NATO supplies of ammunition and equipment come to an end, as that would lead to a defeat of the Ukrainian army, at least as a large-scale fighting force.
Gay pride is a ritual. Organised humanists have a retual to deny being a religious viewpoint, when it fulfils the same role. Sports occasions are full of ritual. Ritual happens when a cat or a dog dies, or a child gets exam results.
Here's a fully grown adult ritually mourning for her horse yesterday, with a long list of ritual replies:
https://twitter.com/amandacomms/status/1570907115056955393
In response to @Dynamo , the hereditary rulers of North Korea have proclaimed themselves atheist in an atheist state. There is no shortage of others. Pretty much all dictatorships have an hereditary aspect in that wealth looted from the country is directed to family members and children. Putin's certainly does.
I normally agree with CR on most things but, as a Leaver and a practical monarchist who has been in mourning this week, I think he is wrong on this and no small amount of insulting to all those Remainers and Republicans (sometimes two quite different sets of people) who have generally behaved impeccably over the last week or more.
Yes, there have been those who have been crass about things - but mostly they are the professional contrarians and trolls rather than the Remainers or Republicans.
As I wrote a few days ago, I remain very impressed and grateful to Republicans who have shown a huge amount of consideration to those who are mourning even whilst retaining their beliefs in the need for eventual change.
This reminds me there is an inevitably very incomplete listing of declined honours in Wikipedia - because many will have been offered and declined in secret, it cannot be complete. Interestingly, some object to honours tout court, and others only to the political/corruption aspect, as perhaps might be expected from such a diverse lot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_declined_a_British_honour
https://ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/where_do_you_fit_in
Better to reverse it: "Make America Great Again" is a very effective slogan because it implies "this place is shit, we can fix it" while using positive words. "Take back control" has similar empowering sentiments.
That would obviously be a Very Bad Thing, but at least Ukraine would mostly be an aghast onlooker along with the rest of Europe.
Britain has evolved over the years. If we remove the monarchy, we'll still be Britain, or England, and continue to evolve.
In a small way I admire your persistence and commitment to your misguided cause but I have to tell you you lost the argument years ago. Probably about 60 years ago.
And even before that the long sweep of human development had moved us inexorably towards greater respect for every individual.
Had it existed 200 years ago, PB.com would have had posters arguing against the blurring of the distinction between the gentry and the common people. Those posters would have been equally whistling in the wind.
Fascism and communism are wretched. The right is far happier to condemn the madness of fascism than the left is the evil of socialism, hence why Corbyn was on Labour's backbenches.
For any who missed it first time round I found this very thoughtful:
https://unherd.com/2022/09/divine-monarchy-is-finished/
You can certainly argue if you wish that she was foolish, but malicious she was not.
Poll of those queuing. 56% Conservative voting, but also overwhelming Remain and very liberal in views and agree people should be able to protest at events. Assume just representative of South East.
Wear yesterday's shirt down to breakfast, in case of beans- or sauce- related mishaps.
Then change into a fresh shirt afterwards.
Once more:
No-one from the Commons to be made a peer without a gap of at least 10-15 years.
No-one who has donated more than, say, £1000 to a political party in the last 5 years shall be eligible for an honour or a peerage for at least 10 years.
Peers must contribute to a minimum number of debates or votes if they are physically capable. If they do not they lose both their voting right and the right to call themselves Lords.
Mind you, I can understand it may have been a surprise for McDonald's coffee to be hot.
Any political philosophy / ideology has it's ritual proclamations and denunciations, whether it's "Up the RA", singing the Red Flag, or Jerusalem, or holding a Glee Club event to remember old values and not to take yourselves too seriously.
There's a current ritual performative outrage amongst some republican types, which has been interesting. And ritual articles in some newspapers demanding that 'monarchism' (a ritual label to deprecate something they want to demonstrate they disagree with) being pushed down their throats, and so on.
The only reliable way to make people do it is unit cohesion hence why military training so intensely suppresses the individual identity in favour of the group.
" It was riddled with politics." But you have to be kind to psychology, it was never a 'real' science. I always wondered how you can gain a PhD in arty subjects. Opinions must trump facts because facts are hard to obtain.
Even theoretical physicists nowadays can write books of conjecture, ones that can never be proved, or even worse, falsified.
As Huxley said ... Science is the 'slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.'
No wonder it's going out of fashion.
As much as I agree with you, it’s pretty obvious why everything is labelled to deter the stupid/malicious.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3522907-gop-lawmaker-byron-donalds-says-trickle-down-economics-does-work/
“The late, great Margaret Thatcher said it better than any of us ever could: Joe Biden to the Democrats will prefer the poor be poor so the rich are less rich,” Donalds said in a press conference Tuesday.
"And yes, trickle-down economics..which does acrually work."
There are linked but separate questions about the actual future of the monarchy.
One question is: What is the level of support for status quo
Another is: What are the prospects of a party who can win a GE having a monarchy review in its manifesto
Another is: What are the probabilities of any change actually occurring in some time frame
Another is: What alternative, after being scrutinised in detail for years, would stand any chance of being adopted instead.
Let's say polling support for the monarchy drifted as low as 35%.
The chances of a party manifesto at GE time supporting monarchy review still remain close to zero. Rendering actual change about Zero% probability
Therefore the monarchy may or may not be popular, but it is safe for the fairly long term.
If I was starting from scratch a monarch would not be a part of the system. It is an anachronism. But it serves the symbolic purpose well enough and I would not be minded to change it.