Let’s not forget that one of the late Queen’s fairly early decisions (1958) was to end the racket of “Presentation at Court” and the whole archaic debutante industry. I wonder what her son will do?
OTD in 1939 Poland, as a complete surprise to us, suddenly ceased to exist so we "entered to restore order and protect our compatriots abroad". We ended up committing crimes against humanity. Definitely not an invasion.
Imagine that happening today.
Our efforts to protect Poland involved Stalin ordering 20,000 of them shot. We blamed the Nazis. We lied & later admitted it was us.
These polls while still having the monarchy ahead are out of date.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.
Shared values/rituals/fetishes are part of that process, though, aren’t they ?
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?
A bit like those bag of peanuts that say on them that they "may contain nuts".
I'd be more concerned if they might not contain them.
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.
Tbh McDonalds coffee is decent for the price. Way better than the ghastly fair trade muck our Uni delights in serving.
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.
Only for those who don't understand it, of which there are plenty on both sides of the Culture Wars.
Acknowledging peoples overlapping multifaceted identities is about recognising their individuality not suppressing 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?
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?
We'd be putting a lot of the legal profession out of business if we did that.
There are any number of cases (libel, inheritance disputes, the Good Law Project), where one is left thinking "what the hell were thinking, throwing all that money down the drain?")
I have one where the administrators of a bunch of interlocking estates have spent the past nineteen years, wrongfully enriching themselves, and have been removed as administrators in turn, in six different cases. This has ended up costing them about £1.5m in legal fees, costs they could easily have avoided by doing their job honestly and competently.
Dr. Foxy, sure. And communism's great, it's just that past efforts weren't 'real' socialism. This time it'll work for sure!
The attempts to normalise judging people by the colour of their skin is absolutely wretched, not to mention bloody stupid. But because it claims to be progressive and 'punching up' [another reprehensible idea and phrase] some will nod and go along with it.
Refusing to hire people or seeking to be able to deny job opportunities to people for being white is insane, as well as being immoral.
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.
Tbh McDonalds coffee is decent for the price. Way better than the ghastly fair trade muck our Uni delights in serving.
Yes, it is really quite good and a much better price than Starbucks etc, though I rarely buy takeaway coffee. An opportunity for coffee is an opportunity to have a break, and sit down to contemplate the world and its affairs.
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 wasn’t a straw man, rather a deliberate term of criticism. As for “never used by…” The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen.[7] David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's former budget director, championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:…
On topic: the polling numbers on the monarchy are simply a reflection of progressive societal movement away from deference, but they don't represent any threat to the Crown. The numbers of committed republicans, other than those of the Irish nationalist flavour, are minimal - most people who are in favour of abolition in theory rarely, if ever, think, let alone care, about the topic in practice.
Let’s not forget that one of the late Queen’s fairly early decisions (1958) was to end the racket of “Presentation at Court” and the whole archaic debutante industry. I wonder what her son will do?
Given the stated intention to slim down the monarchy, the test will be the futures of George's siblings, Charlotte and Louis. Logically they would have to be encouraged to look to a future outside of Royal ceremonial.
Seems so, someone rushed towards the coffin. Sadly it doesn't sound like they were impaled on a pike or chopped down with a sword before being removed by the police.
Must have been earlier - there was a break in the feed.
At least it didn't happen with the King present.
Inevitable. Feel a bit sorry for those who had queued for 12 hours only to have their moment in the hall ruined.
Honestly think the whole thing has gone on too long now....the relentless coverage encourages the nutters...who knows who else is lurking in the queue
Are you there?
This is really a very unfair post. The poster in question doesn’t seem to have posted acting beyond saying this whole thing has gone on too long and is over the top. And that they are a republican.
I’ve said pretty much the same, so has TSE. Why are you and others targeting this poster every minute of every day?
Dr. Foxy, sure. And communism's great, it's just that past efforts weren't 'real' socialism. This time it'll work for sure!
The attempts to normalise judging people by the colour of their skin is absolutely wretched, not to mention bloody stupid. But because it claims to be progressive and 'punching up' [another reprehensible idea and phrase] some will nod and go along with it.
Refusing to hire people or seeking to be able to deny job opportunities to people for being white is insane, as well as being immoral.
I agree. As I said, it is often misunderstood by both sides.
It is equally wrong to deny that systemic, often subconscious, racism and sexism still exist in society, and need to be addressed.
Mr. Password, I would've thought, even slimmed down, the plan would be for the Cambridges and their children to form the core of the Firm. But not much beyond that.
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.
"[He'd] always thought that heroes had some special kind of clockwork that made them go out and die famously for god, country and apple pie, or whatever particular delicacy their mother made. It had never occurred to him that they might do it because they'd get yelled at if they didn't".
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
Isn't that just another way of expressing the question, though?
There's clearly lots of wealth in both the UK and USA, but it doesn't make the public at large feel good. And that ought to give us pause for thought, at the very least.
Barely any different down South. Autumn is upon us, and just in time for my race tomorrow as well. Good news, and a blessed relief after all those rotten heatwaves.
Mr. Romford, I have vague memories of an economic/life expectancy study of Hungary in the late 50s or early 60s in which it became notably wealthier but people weren't happier (for rather obvious reasons, perhaps) and started dying younger.
Also, suicide today is way higher than it was in the 17th century (which also had a difficult time for low and medium earners as the minimum wages of the 14th century had been replaced by an upper limit so that even talented chaps with in-demand talent could find it hard to make ends meet).
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
Isn't that just another way of expressing the question, though?
There's clearly lots of wealth in both the UK and USA, but it doesn't make the public at large feel good. And that ought to give us pause for thought, at the very least.
That's a different issue. There are too many ways in which this country (and the USA) are run badly.
One thing that puzzles me is that the distribution of income in this country is pretty unequal for rich world countries, whereas the distribution of wealth is not.
Dr. Foxy, sure. And communism's great, it's just that past efforts weren't 'real' socialism. This time it'll work for sure!
The attempts to normalise judging people by the colour of their skin is absolutely wretched, not to mention bloody stupid. But because it claims to be progressive and 'punching up' [another reprehensible idea and phrase] some will nod and go along with it.
Refusing to hire people or seeking to be able to deny job opportunities to people for being white is insane, as well as being immoral.
I agree. As I said, it is often misunderstood by both sides.
It is equally wrong to deny that systemic, often subconscious, racism and sexism still exist in society, and need to be addressed.
That's true, concerns about going too far should not mean doing nothing about issues of racism or sexism, and various other isms.
But equally, while I do think some on here go on a bit much about the dangers and worries, that should not disguise that some people and institutions really are pushing some really awful things, some of which is downright racist itself.
It is an issue. How much people disagree on, certainly, but some of it does need resisting and not just accepting the claims of progressiveness from its adherents.
I know that there is a lot of raging for instance about quoting MLK about not being judged by colour of the skin for example, and I've seen pushback that that was, indeed, a dream, not yet achieved, and there are iniquities to be addressed etc, it isn't a shield people can use to avoid issues of race. I can accept that. But a lot of the language the more radical people use seems to explicitly reject it even as a dream, that a hyper focus on it must be permanent, like those 'revolutionary' autocrats who never actually reach the promised utopia.
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
Isn't that just another way of expressing the question, though?
There's clearly lots of wealth in both the UK and USA, but it doesn't make the public at large feel good. And that ought to give us pause for thought, at the very least.
That's a different issue. There are too many ways in which this country (and the USA) are run badly.
One thing that puzzles me is that the distribution of income in this country is pretty unequal for rich world countries, whereas the distribution of wealth is not.
How many pensioners with low incomes have very valuable houses?
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?
A bit like those bag of peanuts that say on them that they "may contain nuts".
I'd be more concerned if they might not contain them.
The best one I have seen is a bottle of water saying "suitable for vegetarians".
Mr. Password, I would've thought, even slimmed down, the plan would be for the Cambridges and their children to form the core of the Firm. But not much beyond that.
The problem is that, when the children grow up, and have families, suddenly the whole is not slimmed down. So you have to manage a transition where the younger siblings might be required as a back-up, but are then not required, and so have to be pruned away.
This transition never happened for the siblings of KCIII, which is why the family is now so sprawling and large. It was mishandled for Harry, which has caused some minor difficulty. If KCIII lives as long as his mother, then George will be 32 (older than William was when George was born), Charlotte 30 and Louis 27. Charlotte and Louis will need something non-Royal to do.
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.
"[He'd] always thought that heroes had some special kind of clockwork that made them go out and die famously for god, country and apple pie, or whatever particular delicacy their mother made. It had never occurred to him that they might do it because they'd get yelled at if they didn't".
I think the reasons why you would wish to fight, in a modern rich world country, are going to be very different to the reasons why you would wish to fight if, say, you were living in Eastern Europe at the time of The Deluge. I certainly don't think these reasons are going to be universal, across time and place. Loyalty to one's comrades, however, is probably the one universal feature.
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.
Does arguing against a strawman help you deal with the fact that in actuality it's you who've lost the argument?
Regarding breakfast, today's relaxed Haggis-laden affair was better than yesterday. The Ham and Tomato panini I had was very nice! But it was at 5am local, in a packed Cluj-Napoca airport. Having already been await 2+ hours due to insomnia.
With the two timezone changes (as I flew via Berlin) and being awake from 1am UK time, yesterday was a very long day.
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
Isn't that just another way of expressing the question, though?
There's clearly lots of wealth in both the UK and USA, but it doesn't make the public at large feel good. And that ought to give us pause for thought, at the very least.
That's a different issue. There are too many ways in which this country (and the USA) are run badly.
One thing that puzzles me is that the distribution of income in this country is pretty unequal for rich world countries, whereas the distribution of wealth is not.
How many pensioners with low incomes have very valuable houses?
I'd have thought that would have the effect of making the distribution of wealth unequal, while the equalising incomes.
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
You're looking at the same figures with different lenses. You're right that the average is high. It's also true that acute poverty is more common in Britain and the US than many other countries. If we calculated national wealth by averaging King Charles and a bloke sleeping on the street, we'd have an excellent average, but it would veil the point that the link makes.
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.
Well not anymore. As usual wikipedia has plenty to say on it.
Perhaps I'm unusual in being on the centre left but consider the idea worth debating. We spent quite a bit of time attracting wealthy people to the UK in the hope that them spending their money here would benefit the masses in some kind of virtuous circle. Or in the case of new labour tying to generate more tax revenue so they could keep 'investing' in health and education. My fundamental problem is really one of emphasis. An attitude in government that thinks of how to incentivise the global oligarchy to find its home in the UK as being the solution to the economic problem. Instead what we should be focusing on is raising the productivity level at work of Joe Average. Maybe that isn't exciting enough or just too difficult for our ruling elites deal with.
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:
I didn't sneer at you or your white van. I was nonetheleeless very disappointed at my loss of freedom of movement.
Yes I was angry and I question why you and your white van were so desperate to put obstacles in my way to facilitate a comfortable retirement in the Mediterranean sun.
Mr. Romford, I have vague memories of an economic/life expectancy study of Hungary in the late 50s or early 60s in which it became notably wealthier but people weren't happier (for rather obvious reasons, perhaps) and started dying younger.
Also, suicide today is way higher than it was in the 17th century (which also had a difficult time for low and medium earners as the minimum wages of the 14th century had been replaced by an upper limit so that even talented chaps with in-demand talent could find it hard to make ends meet).
Studying suicide rates is very difficult because aknowledgement that a death was suicide varies tremendously between societies, and over time depending on social mores. Hence published figures are rarely very accurate.
There is some reasonable evidence that as countries get richer their rates of mental health conditions worsen:
It maybe about Maslows hierarchy of needs, and hence rich peoples problems, though paradoxically mental health issues within a society are more common in lower SE classes.
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
You're looking at the same figures with different lenses. You're right that the average is high. It's also true that acute poverty is more common in Britain and the US than many other countries. If we calculated national wealth by averaging King Charles and a bloke sleeping on the street, we'd have an excellent average, but it would veil the point that the link makes.
Acute poverty in the UK is nothing like as bad as the USA.
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
You're looking at the same figures with different lenses. You're right that the average is high. It's also true that acute poverty is more common in Britain and the US than many other countries. If we calculated national wealth by averaging King Charles and a bloke sleeping on the street, we'd have an excellent average, but it would veil the point that the link makes.
Sure, but even if one uses the median point, for both income and wealth, the UK and US don't come anywhere close to being "poor societies".
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
Isn't that just another way of expressing the question, though?
There's clearly lots of wealth in both the UK and USA, but it doesn't make the public at large feel good. And that ought to give us pause for thought, at the very least.
That's a different issue. There are too many ways in which this country (and the USA) are run badly.
One thing that puzzles me is that the distribution of income in this country is pretty unequal for rich world countries, whereas the distribution of wealth is not.
How many pensioners with low incomes have very valuable houses?
I'd have thought that would have the effect of making the distribution of wealth unequal, while the equalising incomes.
I would have thought it meant you could have considerable nominal wealth while on low income, which would skew the figures the other way. But I could easily be wrong.
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:
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.
Exactly. Clearly there are some people who do give a shit, but they're a minority.
That's a general issue for those of us interested in politics and even wars to remember. Most people will express an opinion on anything if pressed, but basically they usually just want to get on with living. Class war? Trans vs gays? Kicking out the Tories? Fighting wokism? Building socialism? Greater Russia? Ukrainian borders? All very interesting, but not first priority for most - even, I suspect, in places like Libya where fighting has continued for a generation.
Poverty is a significant problem in the U.K. The lesson of the US, is the lack of a welfare state and the lack of universal public services such as an NHS makes the problem worse.
Another hotel breakfast observation: Haggis is a better alternative to black pudding.
The best black pudding is delicious, but I often find poor versions of it. Can’t say I’ve thought of haggis for breakie, sounds interesting.
Boudin noir. Beats black pudding every time imo.
I like BP but I agree haggis is a great alternative.
Black pudding is great.
Have you tried German Blood Sausage?
I haven't found haggis to be well suited to cooking in small portions, unless cook -> portion -> freeze -> reheat, which is a pfaff.
Not tried German blood sausage - will definitely give it a go.
Agree re haggis - I was thinking of hotel breakfasts where they good it in large quantities as part of a 'Full Scottish'.
On which point, The Roxburgh (nw the Kimpton Charlotte Square, I see) used to do the best breakfast in Edinburgh IMO. I wonder if the new name has changed that?
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.
Nonsense, it is alt- right shock jocks like @Leon winding the coiled spring and stirring the pot.
Tesla said to be giving up on their Berlin giga factory. This feels like an opportunity and early test for the new government. They must do whatever it takes for Tesla to choose the UK as it's base of operations. Fuck the politics of handing out subsidies, the UK needs Tesla much more than we realise.
I doubt too many are kept awake at night at the fact the UK has a monarchy . I don’t see it as an issue which will become part of a manifesto anytime soon. In the great scheme of things it’s pretty low down on the list of people’s concerns . Personally I find the monarchy overall pretty harmless.
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
You're looking at the same figures with different lenses. You're right that the average is high. It's also true that acute poverty is more common in Britain and the US than many other countries. If we calculated national wealth by averaging King Charles and a bloke sleeping on the street, we'd have an excellent average, but it would veil the point that the link makes.
Sure, but even if one uses the median point, for both income and wealth, the UK and US don't come anywhere close to being "poor societies".
Britain and America strive to be the best. Why else do we talk about decline? I don't think making comparisons with the global south is going to resonate with voters who will be inclined to compare their incomes with other OECD nations. We won't deal with celtic nationalism unless we can improve on this and even England might fracture.
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?
A bit like those bag of peanuts that say on them that they "may contain nuts".
I'd be more concerned if they might not contain them.
The best one I have seen is a bottle of water saying "suitable for vegetarians".
I once saw a bottle of water in Sri Lanka labelled "faecal matter 0.00"!
Dr. Foxy, given the comorbidity of intelligence with psych disorders it'd be interesting to consider if improving education has increasing suicide rates as a side effect.
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?
A bit like those bag of peanuts that say on them that they "may contain nuts".
I'd be more concerned if they might not contain them.
The best one I have seen is a bottle of water saying "suitable for vegetarians".
I once saw a bottle of water in Sri Lanka labelled "faecal matter 0.00"!
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.
Exactly. Clearly there are some people who do give a shit, but they're a minority.
That's a general issue for those of us interested in politics and even wars to remember. Most people will express an opinion on anything if pressed, but basically they usually just want to get on with living. Class war? Trans vs gays? Kicking out the Tories? Fighting wokism? Building socialism? Greater Russia? Ukrainian borders? All very interesting, but not first priority for most - even, I suspect, in places like Libya where fighting has continued for a generation.
I think you'll find Ukrainian borders is a pretty big issue in Ukraine! Indeed national borders is one thing that people really DO care about.
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:
I'm not sure I do agree with that, actually. The divinity of the British monarchy is a function of its heritage, traditions and the conduct of its office holder and I think veneration for the monarchy will transfer to King Charles III - as recent polling has indicated - provided his behaviour is exemplary and he earns people's respect through his conduct. I've got no doubt he works hard. The rest is self control, good judgement and gaining people's respect.
HMQ's behaviour was always impeccable. If it hadn't been, she'd have faced the same problems and far earlier in the 20th Century.
In short: the divinity of monarchy is endless, and timeless, provided the institution remains structurally divine in its rituals and his/her majesty also lives up to the office.
Dr. Foxy, given the comorbidity of intelligence with psych disorders it'd be interesting to consider if improving education has increasing suicide rates as a side effect.
Does education increase intelligence? I'd have though intelligence was innate, education is about making the most of what you have.
Poverty is a significant problem in the U.K. The lesson of the US, is the lack of a welfare state and the lack public services such as an NHS makes the problem worse.
While different to the UK, the USA does have a welfare system including health care for the poor.
There is an interesting section in Slaughterhouse 5 where an American makes the case that the American poor have lower self esteem than the European poor. The argument is that other societies have folk tales and culture of poor but worthy people, held back by structural inequality, while the American myth of social mobility blames the poor for their own condition, so they see themselves as social failures.
The book was written a half century ago based on the authors own wartime experiences, but I think a valid argument still today.
I would not like to be in a position where the only choices I had to make in life were about heating my home and putting food in my family’s belly. I don’t see why anyone should face that situation in this country. Nevertheless many thousands are in this position. That’s not ok.
People are egging KCIII on, and want him to succeed, not necessarily because he's Charles but because they're desperate not to lose what they had under QEII.
That suggests to me the British are structurally disposed to favouring the monarchy, and wanting it to continue, and opinion formers who suggest the opposite are really getting it the wrong way round.
Poverty is a significant problem in the U.K. The lesson of the US, is the lack of a welfare state and the lack public services such as an NHS makes the problem worse.
While different to the UK, the USA does have a welfare system including health care for the poor.
There is an interesting section in Slaughterhouse 5 where an American makes the case that the American poor have lower self esteem than the European poor. The argument is that other societies have folk tales and culture of poor but worthy people, held back by structural inequality, while the American myth of social mobility blames the poor for their own condition, so they see themselves as social failures.
The book was written a half century ago based on the authors own wartime experiences, but I think a valid argument still today.
Dr. Foxy, given the comorbidity of intelligence with psych disorders it'd be interesting to consider if improving education has increasing suicide rates as a side effect.
I am not sure where you get your figures from. Suicide rates in the UK are not rising, and are substantially lower than decades ago. See fig 1 in this article:
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
You're looking at the same figures with different lenses. You're right that the average is high. It's also true that acute poverty is more common in Britain and the US than many other countries. If we calculated national wealth by averaging King Charles and a bloke sleeping on the street, we'd have an excellent average, but it would veil the point that the link makes.
Sure, but even if one uses the median point, for both income and wealth, the UK and US don't come anywhere close to being "poor societies".
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:
I'm not sure I do agree with that, actually. The divinity of the British monarchy is a function of its heritage, traditions and the conduct of its office holder and I think veneration for the monarchy will transfer to King Charles III - as recent polling has indicated - provided his behaviour is exemplary and he earns people's respect through his conduct. I've got no doubt he works hard. The rest is self control, good judgement and gaining people's respect.
HMQ's behaviour was always impeccable. If it hadn't been, she'd have faced the same problems and far earlier in the 20th Century.
In short: the divinity of monarchy is endless, and timeless, provided the institution remains structurally divine in its rituals and his/her majesty also lives up to the office.
When my wife complains about the tedium of the excessive coverage of the royal event, I gently remind her that she wrote a PhD thesis on the Julio-Claudian imperial cult.
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 idea that Britain is a “poor” country is laughable and offensive gibberish. Madagascar is a poor country. Moldova is a poor country. Mali is a poor country. No one starves or goes without healthcare in Britain, no one lives without electricity or water - unless they are determined to fuck up their lives. No one lacks a TV
Britain is a rich country with some striking inequality, some struggling towns, and too much wealth invested in property. We can do so much better
Dr. Foxy, the suicide comparison was to centuries ago (Ian Mortimer's Time Traveller's Guide to Restoration England) which was published around 3-5 years ago.
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 UK and US are not by any definition of the term "poor societies". In the former GDP per head (PPP) is $55,000 and in the latter it's $76,000.
You're looking at the same figures with different lenses. You're right that the average is high. It's also true that acute poverty is more common in Britain and the US than many other countries. If we calculated national wealth by averaging King Charles and a bloke sleeping on the street, we'd have an excellent average, but it would veil the point that the link makes.
Acute poverty in the UK is nothing like as bad as the USA.
Agree with both of you. But both countries suffer from a fringe of really serious poverty in a way that many Western countries don't. The original tweet was a provocation, but presumably designed to get us thinking about it.
The thing is that democracy (especially FPTP) is a bit useless at representing the problems of a minority, since they can never win an election unless they ally with people in a very different situation. The argument for what we can broadly call the centre-left is essentially that it pays reasonable attention to this, without giving up on democracy and (regulated) free enterprise. As you know, I was a communist in my teens because I thought that looking after people at the bottom was what really mattered. Quite apart from the defects of countries calling themselves communist, I've come to feel that Danish-style social democracy is a better compromise. Simply forgetting the poor is, however, stupid - quite apart from moral considerations, it ultimately really invites people at the bottom to think about violent action.
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.
Nonsense, it is alt- right shock jocks like @Leon winding the coiled spring and stirring the pot.
So f*****' what if a footballer takes the knee?
Right wingers are so incredibly fragile, aren't they? Takes nothing at all and they're OFF.
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?
A bit like those bag of peanuts that say on them that they "may contain nuts".
I'd be more concerned if they might not contain them.
The best one I have seen is a bottle of water saying "suitable for vegetarians".
I once saw a bottle of water in Sri Lanka labelled "faecal matter 0.00"!
Another point on Tesla and why the UK is a natural fit and nowhere in the EU will now work. The EU approved subsidy programme requires IP transfer/sharing with the EU, lots of companies including Tesla will never do that. Outside of the EU we can build a subsidy programme that doesn't require it and attract those high value jobs and exports we're currently lacking and put the companies in areas where the likes of Slovenia are competing in living standards.
Kwasi must do whatever it takes, this is up to a million very well paid jobs at stake over the next decade. It's the difference between the UK being a huge net exporter of EVs and being a huge net importer.
Poverty used to be my field of work. All I'd say is you need to decide what you are trying to achieve before you start throwing statistics around.
A lot of people mix up inequality for poverty. That's not to say inequality isn't important - I reckon it slows economic growth significantly. An unequal society induces actual poverty too, based on inflated house prices and lack of social mobility.
Also stuff like before or after housing costs, transport provision, crime, QALYs, ACES, wealth realisation, distorted incentives. Not just income levels.
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.
Nonsense, it is alt- right shock jocks like @Leon winding the coiled spring and stirring the pot.
So f*****' what if a footballer takes the knee?
Right wingers are just so incredibly fragile, aren't they? Takes nothing at all and they're OFF.
If only there was a word that could capture the fragility of those absolute snowflakes.......
My mother often used the phrase but it was in the 1950s and it was "all mouth and trousers", then. That is the trappings of authority without the wit to use it. All mouth and no trousers suggests a nudist on the loose. I think it's often mixed up with fur coat and no knickers - used in Merseyside.
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:
I'm not sure I do agree with that, actually. The divinity of the British monarchy is a function of its heritage, traditions and the conduct of its office holder and I think veneration for the monarchy will transfer to King Charles III - as recent polling has indicated - provided his behaviour is exemplary and he earns people's respect through his conduct. I've got no doubt he works hard. The rest is self control, good judgement and gaining people's respect.
HMQ's behaviour was always impeccable. If it hadn't been, she'd have faced the same problems and far earlier in the 20th Century.
In short: the divinity of monarchy is endless, and timeless, provided the institution remains structurally divine in its rituals and his/her majesty also lives up to the office.
Put slightly differently, we’re only one duff monarch away from a republic. Not that any appear to be on the horizon despite the pearl clutching over pens.
Poverty used to be my field of work. All I'd say is you need to decide what you are trying to achieve before you start throwing statistics around.
A lot of people mix up inequality for poverty. That's not to say inequality isn't important - I reckon it slows economic growth significantly. An unequal society induces actual poverty too, based on inflated house prices and lack of social mobility.
Also stuff like before or after housing costs, transport provision, crime, QALYs, ACES, wealth realisation, distorted incentives. Not just income levels.
Also risk - a wealthy business owner is in a much worse position than a salaried person of equal wealth. At the other end of the scale, this is the primary issue with the gig economy - not just the shit wages.
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:
I'm not sure I do agree with that, actually. The divinity of the British monarchy is a function of its heritage, traditions and the conduct of its office holder and I think veneration for the monarchy will transfer to King Charles III - as recent polling has indicated - provided his behaviour is exemplary and he earns people's respect through his conduct. I've got no doubt he works hard. The rest is self control, good judgement and gaining people's respect.
HMQ's behaviour was always impeccable. If it hadn't been, she'd have faced the same problems and far earlier in the 20th Century.
In short: the divinity of monarchy is endless, and timeless, provided the institution remains structurally divine in its rituals and his/her majesty also lives up to the office.
Put slightly differently, we’re only one duff monarch away from a republic. Not that any appear to be on the horizon despite the pearl clutching over pens.
I think one clearly duff monarch gives only about a 10-20% of the end of the monarchy. Two in a row might be odds on.
My mother often used the phrase but it was in the 1950s and it was "all mouth and trousers", then. That is the trappings of authority without the wit to use it. All mouth and no trousers suggests a nudist on the loose. I think it's often mixed up with fur coat and no knickers - used in Merseyside.
Yes, I nearly went with "all fur coat and no knockers" - which is one of my mum's, but decided it wasn't quite right for this.
Another point on Tesla and why the UK is a natural fit and nowhere in the EU will now work. The EU approved subsidy programme requires IP transfer/sharing with the EU, lots of companies including Tesla will never do that. Outside of the EU we can build a subsidy programme that doesn't require it and attract those high value jobs and exports we're currently lacking and put the companies in areas where the likes of Slovenia are competing in living standards.
Kwasi must do whatever it takes, this is up to a million very well paid jobs at stake over the next decade. It's the difference between the UK being a huge net exporter of EVs and being a huge net importer.
So, should we bribe Tesla or should Tesla bribe HMG? Which works best?
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:
I'm not sure I do agree with that, actually. The divinity of the British monarchy is a function of its heritage, traditions and the conduct of its office holder and I think veneration for the monarchy will transfer to King Charles III - as recent polling has indicated - provided his behaviour is exemplary and he earns people's respect through his conduct. I've got no doubt he works hard. The rest is self control, good judgement and gaining people's respect.
HMQ's behaviour was always impeccable. If it hadn't been, she'd have faced the same problems and far earlier in the 20th Century.
In short: the divinity of monarchy is endless, and timeless, provided the institution remains structurally divine in its rituals and his/her majesty also lives up to the office.
Put slightly differently, we’re only one duff monarch away from a republic. Not that any appear to be on the horizon despite the pearl clutching over pens.
Yes, that's possible and I think, again in a rather British way, we'd find a way to edge them out before that happened just as with Edward VIII.
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.
Nonsense, it is alt- right shock jocks like @Leon winding the coiled spring and stirring the pot.
So f*****' what if a footballer takes the knee?
The culture wars are pushing America close to actual civil war. But, sure, they don’t exist and they are all invented by the “alt right”
Poverty used to be my field of work. All I'd say is you need to decide what you are trying to achieve before you start throwing statistics around.
A lot of people mix up inequality for poverty. That's not to say inequality isn't important - I reckon it slows economic growth significantly. An unequal society induces actual poverty too, based on inflated house prices and lack of social mobility.
Also stuff like before or after housing costs, transport provision, crime, QALYs, ACES, wealth realisation, distorted incentives. Not just income levels.
Most on here are trying to re-enforce their long held beliefs so plump for whatever statistics suit their purpose. We are probably all guilty of this to an extent but for some that is the whole point of statistics, to win arguments, not to learn or inform ourselves.
My mother often used the phrase but it was in the 1950s and it was "all mouth and trousers", then. That is the trappings of authority without the wit to use it. All mouth and no trousers suggests a nudist on the loose. I think it's often mixed up with fur coat and no knickers - used in Merseyside.
In the past week, the #UAarmy received thousands of tons of ammunition as a gift from the Armed Forces of 🇷🇺 Please note that we do not accept gifts from murderers, torturers, looters, or rapists. In the coming days, we will return everything, right down to the last shell.
The point about U.K./US poverty is that there are many people who live in poverty here, who wouldn’t in Sunil countries because they follow different policies to us. Poverty is a political choice.
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.
Nonsense, it is alt- right shock jocks like @Leon winding the coiled spring and stirring the pot.
So f*****' what if a footballer takes the knee?
Right wingers are just so incredibly fragile, aren't they? Takes nothing at all and they're OFF.
If only there was a word that could capture the fragility of those absolute snowflakes.......
Let me work on that. See if I can come up with something good.
My mother often used the phrase but it was in the 1950s and it was "all mouth and trousers", then. That is the trappings of authority without the wit to use it. All mouth and no trousers suggests a nudist on the loose. I think it's often mixed up with fur coat and no knickers - used in Merseyside.
Yes, I nearly went with "all fur coat and no knockers" - which is one of my mum's, but decided it wasn't quite right for this.
"Fur coat, no knickers" is surely the correct phrasing?
Another point on Tesla and why the UK is a natural fit and nowhere in the EU will now work. The EU approved subsidy programme requires IP transfer/sharing with the EU, lots of companies including Tesla will never do that. Outside of the EU we can build a subsidy programme that doesn't require it and attract those high value jobs and exports we're currently lacking and put the companies in areas where the likes of Slovenia are competing in living standards.
Kwasi must do whatever it takes, this is up to a million very well paid jobs at stake over the next decade. It's the difference between the UK being a huge net exporter of EVs and being a huge net importer.
Tesla has a de facto IP transfer policy as it has vowed that it will not enforce its patents.
My mother often used the phrase but it was in the 1950s and it was "all mouth and trousers", then. That is the trappings of authority without the wit to use it. All mouth and no trousers suggests a nudist on the loose. I think it's often mixed up with fur coat and no knickers - used in Merseyside.
Yes, I nearly went with "all fur coat and no knockers" - which is one of my mum's, but decided it wasn't quite right for this.
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.
Nonsense, it is alt- right shock jocks like @Leon winding the coiled spring and stirring the pot.
So f*****' what if a footballer takes the knee?
The culture wars are pushing America close to actual civil war. But, sure, they don’t exist and they are all invented by the “alt right”
The alt-right seem to be working themselves into a frenzy, but most "left-leaning" American I know are looking on and going "WTF???". It seems very one-sided with rifles and bibles being waved around
Of all the things to worry about in Britain right now, the monarchy is not in my top 100.
I'm more concerned with the fact that about 78,000 largely male elderly voters got to choose an uncharismatic dishcloth and impose her as PM, frankly.
You are surprised that those elderly men voted for a blonde woman who wears well-fitted dresses, (allegedly) kinky jewellery, and who promised them the world on a plate and all for free?
I thought you understood the world better than that.
[Note to PB: The Oxford comma above was used as an act of rebellion]
I am not surprised. Annoyed. As I was when they did it with Boris and May. The Tory party is behaving as if Britain is their private rotten borough.
My mother often used the phrase but it was in the 1950s and it was "all mouth and trousers", then. That is the trappings of authority without the wit to use it. All mouth and no trousers suggests a nudist on the loose. I think it's often mixed up with fur coat and no knickers - used in Merseyside.
Yes, I nearly went with "all fur coat and no knockers" - which is one of my mum's, but decided it wasn't quite right for this.
"Fur coat, no knickers" is surely the correct phrasing?
Certainly used of Morningside by other Edinburgh locals.
My mother often used the phrase but it was in the 1950s and it was "all mouth and trousers", then. That is the trappings of authority without the wit to use it. All mouth and no trousers suggests a nudist on the loose. I think it's often mixed up with fur coat and no knickers - used in Merseyside.
Yes, I nearly went with "all fur coat and no knockers" - which is one of my mum's, but decided it wasn't quite right for this.
"Fur coat, no knickers" is surely the correct phrasing?
Ah ok! I've been mishearing then - my mum has a strong accent.
Comments
OTD in 1939 Poland, as a complete surprise to us, suddenly ceased to exist so we "entered to restore order and protect our compatriots abroad". We ended up committing crimes against humanity. Definitely not an invasion.
Imagine that happening today.
Our efforts to protect Poland involved Stalin ordering 20,000 of them shot. We blamed the Nazis. We lied & later admitted it was us.
Again. Imaging that happening today...
I like BP but I agree haggis is a great alternative.
I'd be more concerned if they might not contain them.
Acknowledging peoples overlapping multifaceted identities is about recognising their individuality not suppressing it.
There are any number of cases (libel, inheritance disputes, the Good Law Project), where one is left thinking "what the hell were thinking, throwing all that money down the drain?")
I have one where the administrators of a bunch of interlocking estates have spent the past nineteen years, wrongfully enriching themselves, and have been removed as administrators in turn, in six different cases. This has ended up costing them about £1.5m in legal fees, costs they could easily have avoided by doing their job honestly and competently.
The attempts to normalise judging people by the colour of their skin is absolutely wretched, not to mention bloody stupid. But because it claims to be progressive and 'punching up' [another reprehensible idea and phrase] some will nod and go along with it.
Refusing to hire people or seeking to be able to deny job opportunities to people for being white is insane, as well as being immoral.
Have you tried German Blood Sausage?
I haven't found haggis to be well suited to cooking in small portions, unless cook -> portion -> freeze -> reheat, which is a pfaff.
As for “never used by…”
The term "trickle-down" originated as a joke by humorist Will Rogers and today is often used to criticize economic policies that favor the wealthy or privileged while being framed as good for the average citizen.[7] David Stockman, Ronald Reagan's former budget director, championed Reagan's tax cuts at first, but later became critical of them and told journalist William Greider that "supply-side economics" is the trickle-down idea:…
I’ve said pretty much the same, so has TSE. Why are you and others targeting this poster every minute of every day?
It is equally wrong to deny that systemic, often subconscious, racism and sexism still exist in society, and need to be addressed.
"[He'd] always thought that heroes had some special kind of clockwork that made them go out and die famously for god, country and apple pie, or whatever particular delicacy their mother made. It had never occurred to him that they might do it because they'd get yelled at if they didn't".
There's clearly lots of wealth in both the UK and USA, but it doesn't make the public at large feel good. And that ought to give us pause for thought, at the very least.
Also, suicide today is way higher than it was in the 17th century (which also had a difficult time for low and medium earners as the minimum wages of the 14th century had been replaced by an upper limit so that even talented chaps with in-demand talent could find it hard to make ends meet).
One thing that puzzles me is that the distribution of income in this country is pretty unequal for rich world countries, whereas the distribution of wealth is not.
But equally, while I do think some on here go on a bit much about the dangers and worries, that should not disguise that some people and institutions really are pushing some really awful things, some of which is downright racist itself.
It is an issue. How much people disagree on, certainly, but some of it does need resisting and not just accepting the claims of progressiveness from its adherents.
I know that there is a lot of raging for instance about quoting MLK about not being judged by colour of the skin for example, and I've seen pushback that that was, indeed, a dream, not yet achieved, and there are iniquities to be addressed etc, it isn't a shield people can use to avoid issues of race. I can accept that. But a lot of the language the more radical people use seems to explicitly reject it even as a dream, that a hyper focus on it must be permanent, like those 'revolutionary' autocrats who never actually reach the promised utopia.
This transition never happened for the siblings of KCIII, which is why the family is now so sprawling and large. It was mishandled for Harry, which has caused some minor difficulty. If KCIII lives as long as his mother, then George will be 32 (older than William was when George was born), Charlotte 30 and Louis 27. Charlotte and Louis will need something non-Royal to do.
With the two timezone changes (as I flew via Berlin) and being awake from 1am UK time, yesterday was a very long day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
Perhaps I'm unusual in being on the centre left but consider the idea worth debating. We spent quite a bit of time attracting wealthy people to the UK in the hope that them spending their money here would benefit the masses in some kind of virtuous circle. Or in the case of new labour tying to generate more tax revenue so they could keep 'investing' in health and education. My fundamental problem is really one of emphasis. An attitude in government that thinks of how to incentivise the global oligarchy to find its home in the UK as being the solution to the economic problem. Instead what we should be focusing on is raising the productivity level at work of Joe Average. Maybe that isn't exciting enough or just too difficult for our ruling elites deal with.
Yes I was angry and I question why you and your white van were so desperate to put obstacles in my way to facilitate a comfortable retirement in the Mediterranean sun.
There is some reasonable evidence that as countries get richer their rates of mental health conditions worsen:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652881/#:~:text=This preliminary analysis suggests that,rates of mental illness increase.
It maybe about Maslows hierarchy of needs, and hence rich peoples problems, though paradoxically mental health issues within a society are more common in lower SE classes.
That's a general issue for those of us interested in politics and even wars to remember. Most people will express an opinion on anything if pressed, but basically they usually just want to get on with living. Class war? Trans vs gays? Kicking out the Tories? Fighting wokism? Building socialism? Greater Russia? Ukrainian borders? All very interesting, but not first priority for most - even, I suspect, in places like Libya where fighting has continued for a generation.
Black Pudding
White Pudding
Haggis
Dumpling
Agree re haggis - I was thinking of hotel breakfasts where they good it in large quantities as part of a 'Full Scottish'.
On which point, The Roxburgh (nw the Kimpton Charlotte Square, I see) used to do the best breakfast in Edinburgh IMO. I wonder if the new name has changed that?
So f*****' what if a footballer takes the knee?
HMQ's behaviour was always impeccable. If it hadn't been, she'd have faced the same problems and far earlier in the 20th Century.
In short: the divinity of monarchy is endless, and timeless, provided the institution remains structurally divine in its rituals and his/her majesty also lives up to the office.
There is an interesting section in Slaughterhouse 5 where an American makes the case that the American poor have lower self esteem than the European poor. The argument is that other societies have folk tales and culture of poor but worthy people, held back by structural inequality, while the American myth of social mobility blames the poor for their own condition, so they see themselves as social failures.
The book was written a half century ago based on the authors own wartime experiences, but I think a valid argument still today.
Fried is easy, scrambled I can do better than 90% of hotels, poached - nah!
To feel better about yourself - associate with a down-and-out. if you play golf with the local dignitaries, you'll feel poor.
That suggests to me the British are structurally disposed to favouring the monarchy, and wanting it to continue, and opinion formers who suggest the opposite are really getting it the wrong way round.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2652881/#:~:text=This preliminary analysis suggests that,rates of mental illness increase.
Britain is a rich country with some striking inequality, some struggling towns, and too much wealth invested in property. We can do so much better
But we are not poor
The thing is that democracy (especially FPTP) is a bit useless at representing the problems of a minority, since they can never win an election unless they ally with people in a very different situation. The argument for what we can broadly call the centre-left is essentially that it pays reasonable attention to this, without giving up on democracy and (regulated) free enterprise. As you know, I was a communist in my teens because I thought that looking after people at the bottom was what really mattered. Quite apart from the defects of countries calling themselves communist, I've come to feel that Danish-style social democracy is a better compromise. Simply forgetting the poor is, however, stupid - quite apart from moral considerations, it ultimately really invites people at the bottom to think about violent action.
Kwasi must do whatever it takes, this is up to a million very well paid jobs at stake over the next decade. It's the difference between the UK being a huge net exporter of EVs and being a huge net importer.
A lot of people mix up inequality for poverty. That's not to say inequality isn't important - I reckon it slows economic growth significantly. An unequal society induces actual poverty too, based on inflated house prices and lack of social mobility.
Also stuff like before or after housing costs, transport provision, crime, QALYs, ACES, wealth realisation, distorted incentives. Not just income levels.
Mouth, trousers.
My mother often used the phrase but it was in the 1950s and it was "all mouth and trousers", then. That is the trappings of authority without the wit to use it. All mouth and no trousers suggests a nudist on the loose. I think it's often mixed up with fur coat and no knickers - used in Merseyside.
There may be others I have missed.
https://t.co/F51VQTtJgZ
It’s a truly glorious morning out there. Slam the laptop shut and head outside.