Truss may be useless but I am just struggling to see the person that takes over. Can somebody enlighten me?
Boris is a master of the unprecedented; I'd not rule a return out at all. People have short memories re. his failings, and he 'can't be as bad as Truss' etc.
The mechanics are unclear, and I wouldn't say it's likely, but equally I too struggle to see any other obvious candidate.
He is also the solution to the torys mandate problem.
Liz should remove the whip from Johnson to knock him out of contention, use the Privileges Committee report as an excuse.
Does she have the authority? Surely she can’t afford to piss off anyone else?
Suella Braverman has been asked to clarify her academic bona fides after a barrister rubbished the claim that she contributed to his legal textbook.
Braverman’s profile on the website of No5 Chambers, where she worked before becoming an MP, claimed that she "is a contributor to" the 2007 bestseller, Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration.
But Philip Kolvin KC, the book's author, told the Big Issue and confirmed to RollOnFriday that Braverman "did not make a written or editorial contribution to the book".
The extent of her involvement was menial, indicated Kolvin, who said that "on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did".
The embellished CV was published on No5's website before Braverman became an MP, and has now been deleted in full by chambers staff, allegedly at Braverman's request after reporters got in touch to ask her about the inconsistency.
There is precedent for the regulator taking action when barristers gild the lily. In 2013 Dennis O'Riordan, a partner at Paul Hastings, was suspended from practising as a barrister for three years for falsely claiming on his former chambers' website, and his professional profiles, that he went to school at Radley and studied at Oxford and Harvard.
RollOnFriday asked The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service whether it was opening an investigation into Braverman's alleged massaging of her credentials and, if not, why not, given the importance it has historically placed on barristers telling the truth in their website profiles and CVs. It did not respond.
No 5 Chambers did not respond to an email asking whether Braverman was responsible for the questionable phrasing of her deleted profile.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
It would be a bit like bracing as the plane your are on flies dangerously close to a mountain. You are either going to miss the mountain, in which case no point in bracing, or you are going to hit and explode in a fireball... in which case no point in bracing.
Truss government has scrapped offer of free train travel for the military to Remembrance Sunday Services as she continues to put her libertarian principles first.
while on the face of it that seems mean , why doesnt the train companies offer it ? Presumably at the moment some complicated system of reimbursement to train operators is in place if Truss is stopping it?
Truss now trying to lose the military vote tonight it seems as she continues her quest to get the lowest voteshare for a Tory leader ever
Why should serving personnel get free travel for optional spare time activities?
If it's duty (ie a formal parade) then MoD would be paying up front. But if not, then HMG should not. What is the logic?
I could just about understand a far left Scottish nationalist like you wanting not to support the military in going to Remembrance Services. However for a Tory leader it is unforgiveable
I'm not a far left, and I have my gradfather's 1915-1919 medals above my screen. ANd I almost certainly have 3x as many histories of the Great War as you do.
But why on earth do that for *serving* personnel? What is the logic? You havenj't explained it. Is it supposed to improve morale?
Rather than, say, bothering to provide proper housing?
And why do they have to travel to do their Remembrancing? If you are never more than six feet from a rat you are sure as fuck never more than 5 minutes from an authorised mawkfest on Poppymas Day.
I wonder what the greatest distance from a war memorial is in the UK? I'd guess there are large proportions of the country within a few miles of one. I'm just over one quarter of a mile from the nearest that I know of. Maybe they are all mapped somewhere...
Suella Braverman has been asked to clarify her academic bona fides after a barrister rubbished the claim that she contributed to his legal textbook.
Braverman’s profile on the website of No5 Chambers, where she worked before becoming an MP, claimed that she "is a contributor to" the 2007 bestseller, Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration.
But Philip Kolvin KC, the book's author, told the Big Issue and confirmed to RollOnFriday that Braverman "did not make a written or editorial contribution to the book".
The extent of her involvement was menial, indicated Kolvin, who said that "on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did".
The embellished CV was published on No5's website before Braverman became an MP, and has now been deleted in full by chambers staff, allegedly at Braverman's request after reporters got in touch to ask her about the inconsistency.
There is precedent for the regulator taking action when barristers gild the lily. In 2013 Dennis O'Riordan, a partner at Paul Hastings, was suspended from practising as a barrister for three years for falsely claiming on his former chambers' website, and his professional profiles, that he went to school at Radley and studied at Oxford and Harvard.
RollOnFriday asked The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service whether it was opening an investigation into Braverman's alleged massaging of her credentials and, if not, why not, given the importance it has historically placed on barristers telling the truth in their website profiles and CVs. It did not respond.
No 5 Chambers did not respond to an email asking whether Braverman was responsible for the questionable phrasing of her deleted profile.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
It would be a bit like bracing as the plane your are on flies dangerously close to a mountain. You are either going to miss the mountain, in which case no point in bracing, or you are going to hit and explode in a fireball... in which case no point in bracing.
(I knew I should have given up flying.)
you dont need to brace but to protest - There is not winner and loser in this and people and countries shoudl stop trying to pretend that there will be - Russia and Putin need to save face - even Biden (thank god ) hinted at that today - lets hope he or somebody sensible can work it out what it is that can deescalate this
Okay - it's time for another session of "Educating Stodge".
I see the DJIA is falling this evening on the back of some strong payroll data in the US this afternoon. I presume said data puts pressure on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to slow economic activity.
I also see the greenback is on the march up as are oil prices.
I can understand why rising interest rates wouldn't be good for equities - why risk stocks and shares when, after nearly 15 years, there are some other sources offering decent returns?
However, I suspect much of this isn't good for the UK either. Do we want to be raising interest rates to protect sterling or do we cut them as a way of encouraging economic activity (after all, a devalued sterling is good for exporters though not much good for oil prices, already moving towards $95 a barrel).
I suppose another consequence of rising interest rates is it becomes more expensive to borrow money so the debt management costs will eat into more of our public expenditure even though I'm told rising inflation will help the debt problem over time.
Rising fuel costs means more inflation which in turn causes more problems.
Is this one of those "frying pan and fire" situations of which I've heard so much?
Yes. Or I more think of it as a sinking vessel with 4 people and 3 life jackets.
Truss may be useless but I am just struggling to see the person that takes over. Can somebody enlighten me?
Boris is a master of the unprecedented; I'd not rule a return out at all. People have short memories re. his failings, and he 'can't be as bad as Truss' etc.
The mechanics are unclear, and I wouldn't say it's likely, but equally I too struggle to see any other obvious candidate.
He is also the solution to the torys mandate problem.
Liz should remove the whip from Johnson to knock him out of contention, use the Privileges Committee report as an excuse.
Does she have the authority? Surely she can’t afford to piss off anyone else?
Nadine has already fired a warning shot.
I assume the party leader has the authority to remove the whip - Johnson did a lot of that in 2019. It would have to be on the back of a damning Privilege Committee report to have any chance of sticking. Even then it could split the party.
Most likely, Truss just brazens it out - she cannot officially be removed for 12 months.
Suella Braverman has been asked to clarify her academic bona fides after a barrister rubbished the claim that she contributed to his legal textbook.
Braverman’s profile on the website of No5 Chambers, where she worked before becoming an MP, claimed that she "is a contributor to" the 2007 bestseller, Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration.
But Philip Kolvin KC, the book's author, told the Big Issue and confirmed to RollOnFriday that Braverman "did not make a written or editorial contribution to the book".
The extent of her involvement was menial, indicated Kolvin, who said that "on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did".
The embellished CV was published on No5's website before Braverman became an MP, and has now been deleted in full by chambers staff, allegedly at Braverman's request after reporters got in touch to ask her about the inconsistency.
There is precedent for the regulator taking action when barristers gild the lily. In 2013 Dennis O'Riordan, a partner at Paul Hastings, was suspended from practising as a barrister for three years for falsely claiming on his former chambers' website, and his professional profiles, that he went to school at Radley and studied at Oxford and Harvard.
RollOnFriday asked The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service whether it was opening an investigation into Braverman's alleged massaging of her credentials and, if not, why not, given the importance it has historically placed on barristers telling the truth in their website profiles and CVs. It did not respond.
No 5 Chambers did not respond to an email asking whether Braverman was responsible for the questionable phrasing of her deleted profile.
"Do they know something we don't? US stocks up on $300m worth of radiation sickness drug - but officials insist it has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's nuke threats The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies' The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"
Starmer is going to win but he is completely fucked, however
I had one of my NOTORIOUS DRINKS WITH A LEFTY FRIEND last night. A Cambridge educated journalist
He was chortling about the travails of the Tories, and fair enough, but then I asked him: What will Starmer DO? How will he get down the debt, tackle the deficit, bring back confidence, tackle foreign policy, and so on?
Answer came there none. My friend stopped chortling. Because there is no answer. The Labour government from 2024 on is going to be painfully different from Blair's in 1997, which basically just handed out the money made by the Tories
Indeed I think the Labour government of Keir Starmer - if they get the framing wrong - could be one of the most divided and unpopular in history. It will be Wilson-Callaghan on steroids and ayahuasca. It will have to impose horrible spending cuts and it will have to deal ruthlessly with mass immigration, against all of its instincts. Nasty
The Wilson-Callaghan governments weren't particularly unpopular. Or divided.
Which is why I said it will be Wilson-Callaghan on STEROIDS AND AYAHUASCA
Though Truss has done the nation a bit of a favour here.
A different Conservative PM would have been more cynical about keeping the plates spinning until 2024. Let the incoming government have the crash and pains of rebuilding on their watch.
By visibly screwing up so much now, the pain starts on the watch of Truss or her successor as Captain of the Titanic. And Starmer can probably get away with "painful but necessary, cleaning up the Tories' mess" for a good few years.
It might not be enough, but it could be a lot worse.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
Canada is one of the few places where legally married same sex couples can legally defend their cannabis farm with guns.
Along with Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Washington DC, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Michigan, Vermont, Guam, Virginia, New Mexico and Rhode Island.
The UK is falling quite backwards on this actually.
Reasonable people may disagree on such a thing. I don't think concerns should be brushed aside merely because other places have taken an action. But equally, those most resistent to the idea act like those other places must have done it with no thought or analysis whatsoever, or that it is irrelevant.
If you are looking at the US you need to remember that the whole oxycodone crisis was cooked up by the Sackler family to make money, and got past the entire regulatory system, and that there is more money to be made in legal cannabis than in opioids. It's also a country where business successfully lobbied for pizza to be defined as a vegetable. So the argument that they must have scrupulously weighed the arguments and decided on what was best doesn't bear too much weight.
Suella Braverman has been asked to clarify her academic bona fides after a barrister rubbished the claim that she contributed to his legal textbook.
Braverman’s profile on the website of No5 Chambers, where she worked before becoming an MP, claimed that she "is a contributor to" the 2007 bestseller, Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration.
But Philip Kolvin KC, the book's author, told the Big Issue and confirmed to RollOnFriday that Braverman "did not make a written or editorial contribution to the book".
The extent of her involvement was menial, indicated Kolvin, who said that "on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did".
The embellished CV was published on No5's website before Braverman became an MP, and has now been deleted in full by chambers staff, allegedly at Braverman's request after reporters got in touch to ask her about the inconsistency.
There is precedent for the regulator taking action when barristers gild the lily. In 2013 Dennis O'Riordan, a partner at Paul Hastings, was suspended from practising as a barrister for three years for falsely claiming on his former chambers' website, and his professional profiles, that he went to school at Radley and studied at Oxford and Harvard.
RollOnFriday asked The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service whether it was opening an investigation into Braverman's alleged massaging of her credentials and, if not, why not, given the importance it has historically placed on barristers telling the truth in their website profiles and CVs. It did not respond.
No 5 Chambers did not respond to an email asking whether Braverman was responsible for the questionable phrasing of her deleted profile.
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
"Do they know something we don't? US stocks up on $300m worth of radiation sickness drug - but officials insist it has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's nuke threats The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies' The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"
It is prudent on one way but shows how close we are to western civilisation being wiped out alone with all of us and our families. Whatever the rights and wrongs on Ukraine are , Ukraine is not worth it - Putin needs to save face, Biden said so as much today - something needs to be done soon now to deescalate
Truss may be useless but I am just struggling to see the person that takes over. Can somebody enlighten me?
Boris is a master of the unprecedented; I'd not rule a return out at all. People have short memories re. his failings, and he 'can't be as bad as Truss' etc.
The mechanics are unclear, and I wouldn't say it's likely, but equally I too struggle to see any other obvious candidate.
He is also the solution to the torys mandate problem.
Liz should remove the whip from Johnson to knock him out of contention, use the Privileges Committee report as an excuse.
Does she have the authority? Surely she can’t afford to piss off anyone else?
Nadine has already fired a warning shot.
I assume the party leader has the authority to remove the whip - Johnson did a lot of that in 2019. It would have to be on the back of a damning Privilege Committee report to have any chance of sticking.
It’s notable that she doesn’t have the power/authority to withdraw the whip from Gove.
The bastards aren’t even pretending any more. It’s open warfare.
Starmer is going to win but he is completely fucked, however
I had one of my NOTORIOUS DRINKS WITH A LEFTY FRIEND last night. A Cambridge educated journalist
He was chortling about the travails of the Tories, and fair enough, but then I asked him: What will Starmer DO? How will he get down the debt, tackle the deficit, bring back confidence, tackle foreign policy, and so on?
Answer came there none. My friend stopped chortling. Because there is no answer. The Labour government from 2024 on is going to be painfully different from Blair's in 1997, which basically just handed out the money made by the Tories
Indeed I think the Labour government of Keir Starmer - if they get the framing wrong - could be one of the most divided and unpopular in history. It will be Wilson-Callaghan on steroids and ayahuasca. It will have to impose horrible spending cuts and it will have to deal ruthlessly with mass immigration, against all of its instincts. Nasty
The Wilson-Callaghan governments weren't particularly unpopular. Or divided.
Which is why I said it will be Wilson-Callaghan on STEROIDS AND AYAHUASCA
Though Truss has done the nation a bit of a favour here.
A different Conservative PM would have been more cynical about keeping the plates spinning until 2024. Let the incoming government have the crash and pains of rebuilding on their watch.
By visibly screwing up so much now, the pain starts on the watch of Truss or her successor as Captain of the Titanic. And Starmer can probably get away with "painful but necessary, cleaning up the Tories' mess" for a good few years.
It might not be enough, but it could be a lot worse.
Nah, Starmer's honeymoon will last about 6 weeks. It is going to be very painful
When it turns out he can't solve our problems fast the buyer's remorse will be intense and sudden. The polling for Labour is absurdly inflated by unfulfillable hopes
Truss government has scrapped offer of free train travel for the military to Remembrance Sunday Services as she continues to put her libertarian principles first.
while on the face of it that seems mean , why doesnt the train companies offer it ? Presumably at the moment some complicated system of reimbursement to train operators is in place if Truss is stopping it?
Truss now trying to lose the military vote tonight it seems as she continues her quest to get the lowest voteshare for a Tory leader ever
Why should serving personnel get free travel for optional spare time activities?
If it's duty (ie a formal parade) then MoD would be paying up front. But if not, then HMG should not. What is the logic?
I could just about understand a far left Scottish nationalist like you wanting not to support the military in going to Remembrance Services. However for a Tory leader it is unforgiveable
I'm not a far left, and I have my gradfather's 1915-1919 medals above my screen. ANd I almost certainly have 3x as many histories of the Great War as you do.
But why on earth do that for *serving* personnel? What is the logic? You havenj't explained it. Is it supposed to improve morale?
Rather than, say, bothering to provide proper housing?
And why do they have to travel to do their Remembrancing? If you are never more than six feet from a rat you are sure as fuck never more than 5 minutes from an authorised mawkfest on Poppymas Day.
I wonder what the greatest distance from a war memorial is in the UK? I'd guess there are large proportions of the country within a few miles of one. I'm just over one quarter of a mile from the nearest that I know of. Maybe they are all mapped somewhere...
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
Truss government has scrapped offer of free train travel for the military to Remembrance Sunday Services as she continues to put her libertarian principles first.
while on the face of it that seems mean , why doesnt the train companies offer it ? Presumably at the moment some complicated system of reimbursement to train operators is in place if Truss is stopping it?
Truss now trying to lose the military vote tonight it seems as she continues her quest to get the lowest voteshare for a Tory leader ever
Why are you being so negative?
It is Truss making these errors not me
I cannot see a positive for Truss
An intellectual without the intellect - really not what you want in a PM.
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
"Do they know something we don't? US stocks up on $300m worth of radiation sickness drug - but officials insist it has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's nuke threats The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies' The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"
It is prudent on one way but shows how close we are to western civilisation being wiped out alone with all of us and our families. Whatever the rights and wrongs on Ukraine are , Ukraine is not worth it - Putin needs to save face, Biden said so as much today - something needs to be done soon now to deescalate
I completely agree
The time is coming when we have to make peace with Putin - or we all die
It is not nice. It is horrible. Putin is a Slavic Hitler and his army is barbaric and he deserves total defeat and Russia should be occupied like Japan or Germany in 1945
Nonetheless he has nukes, and that's the end of it. Total defeat of Putin is not on the menu
The Peace needs to be sufficiently punishing of Russia such that they never try this shit again, but also offers him just enough "victory" to save face and retreat in order, his honour "restored". And then a deeply Cold War will ensue, where the West painfully learns to live without Russian energy, and Russia slowly realises it is now dependant on China and India. So be it
Truss government has scrapped offer of free train travel for the military to Remembrance Sunday Services as she continues to put her libertarian principles first.
while on the face of it that seems mean , why doesnt the train companies offer it ? Presumably at the moment some complicated system of reimbursement to train operators is in place if Truss is stopping it?
Truss now trying to lose the military vote tonight it seems as she continues her quest to get the lowest voteshare for a Tory leader ever
Why should serving personnel get free travel for optional spare time activities?
If it's duty (ie a formal parade) then MoD would be paying up front. But if not, then HMG should not. What is the logic?
I could just about understand a far left Scottish nationalist like you wanting not to support the military in going to Remembrance Services. However for a Tory leader it is unforgiveable
I'm not a far left, and I have my gradfather's 1915-1919 medals above my screen. ANd I almost certainly have 3x as many histories of the Great War as you do.
But why on earth do that for *serving* personnel? What is the logic? You havenj't explained it. Is it supposed to improve morale?
Rather than, say, bothering to provide proper housing?
And why do they have to travel to do their Remembrancing? If you are never more than six feet from a rat you are sure as fuck never more than 5 minutes from an authorised mawkfest on Poppymas Day.
I wonder what the greatest distance from a war memorial is in the UK? I'd guess there are large proportions of the country within a few miles of one. I'm just over one quarter of a mile from the nearest that I know of. Maybe they are all mapped somewhere...
Truss government has scrapped offer of free train travel for the military to Remembrance Sunday Services as she continues to put her libertarian principles first.
while on the face of it that seems mean , why doesnt the train companies offer it ? Presumably at the moment some complicated system of reimbursement to train operators is in place if Truss is stopping it?
Truss now trying to lose the military vote tonight it seems as she continues her quest to get the lowest voteshare for a Tory leader ever
Why should serving personnel get free travel for optional spare time activities?
If it's duty (ie a formal parade) then MoD would be paying up front. But if not, then HMG should not. What is the logic?
I could just about understand a far left Scottish nationalist like you wanting not to support the military in going to Remembrance Services. However for a Tory leader it is unforgiveable
I'm not a far left, and I have my gradfather's 1915-1919 medals above my screen. ANd I almost certainly have 3x as many histories of the Great War as you do.
But why on earth do that for *serving* personnel? What is the logic? You havenj't explained it. Is it supposed to improve morale?
Rather than, say, bothering to provide proper housing?
And why do they have to travel to do their Remembrancing? If you are never more than six feet from a rat you are sure as fuck never more than 5 minutes from an authorised mawkfest on Poppymas Day.
I wonder what the greatest distance from a war memorial is in the UK? I'd guess there are large proportions of the country within a few miles of one. I'm just over one quarter of a mile from the nearest that I know of. Maybe they are all mapped somewhere...
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Truss government has scrapped offer of free train travel for the military to Remembrance Sunday Services as she continues to put her libertarian principles first.
while on the face of it that seems mean , why doesnt the train companies offer it ? Presumably at the moment some complicated system of reimbursement to train operators is in place if Truss is stopping it?
Truss now trying to lose the military vote tonight it seems as she continues her quest to get the lowest voteshare for a Tory leader ever
Why should serving personnel get free travel for optional spare time activities?
If it's duty (ie a formal parade) then MoD would be paying up front. But if not, then HMG should not. What is the logic?
I could just about understand a far left Scottish nationalist like you wanting not to support the military in going to Remembrance Services. However for a Tory leader it is unforgiveable
I'm not a far left, and I have my gradfather's 1915-1919 medals above my screen. ANd I almost certainly have 3x as many histories of the Great War as you do.
But why on earth do that for *serving* personnel? What is the logic? You havenj't explained it. Is it supposed to improve morale?
Rather than, say, bothering to provide proper housing?
And why do they have to travel to do their Remembrancing? If you are never more than six feet from a rat you are sure as fuck never more than 5 minutes from an authorised mawkfest on Poppymas Day.
I wonder what the greatest distance from a war memorial is in the UK? I'd guess there are large proportions of the country within a few miles of one. I'm just over one quarter of a mile from the nearest that I know of. Maybe they are all mapped somewhere...
Ilford has one:
Interesting the rifle is not inverted - so not mourning (cf. the Royal Artillery one at Marble Arch IIRC).
Matt Goodwin, readable, excellent and wrong on the subject of 'The space for a new party'. His answer: Yes. There is space for a populist, anti-intellectual, anti-liberal, entirely self interested and inward looking party that achieves contradictory aims simultaneously and looks a bit like UKIP.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
Truss government has scrapped offer of free train travel for the military to Remembrance Sunday Services as she continues to put her libertarian principles first.
while on the face of it that seems mean , why doesnt the train companies offer it ? Presumably at the moment some complicated system of reimbursement to train operators is in place if Truss is stopping it?
Truss now trying to lose the military vote tonight it seems as she continues her quest to get the lowest voteshare for a Tory leader ever
Why should serving personnel get free travel for optional spare time activities?
If it's duty (ie a formal parade) then MoD would be paying up front. But if not, then HMG should not. What is the logic?
I could just about understand a far left Scottish nationalist like you wanting not to support the military in going to Remembrance Services. However for a Tory leader it is unforgiveable
I'm not a far left, and I have my gradfather's 1915-1919 medals above my screen. ANd I almost certainly have 3x as many histories of the Great War as you do.
But why on earth do that for *serving* personnel? What is the logic? You havenj't explained it. Is it supposed to improve morale?
Rather than, say, bothering to provide proper housing?
And why do they have to travel to do their Remembrancing? If you are never more than six feet from a rat you are sure as fuck never more than 5 minutes from an authorised mawkfest on Poppymas Day.
I wonder what the greatest distance from a war memorial is in the UK? I'd guess there are large proportions of the country within a few miles of one. I'm just over one quarter of a mile from the nearest that I know of. Maybe they are all mapped somewhere...
Ilford has one:
Interesting the rifle is not inverted - so not mourning (cf. the Royal Artillery one at Marble Arch IIRC).
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
Suella Braverman has been asked to clarify her academic bona fides after a barrister rubbished the claim that she contributed to his legal textbook.
Braverman’s profile on the website of No5 Chambers, where she worked before becoming an MP, claimed that she "is a contributor to" the 2007 bestseller, Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration.
But Philip Kolvin KC, the book's author, told the Big Issue and confirmed to RollOnFriday that Braverman "did not make a written or editorial contribution to the book".
The extent of her involvement was menial, indicated Kolvin, who said that "on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did".
The embellished CV was published on No5's website before Braverman became an MP, and has now been deleted in full by chambers staff, allegedly at Braverman's request after reporters got in touch to ask her about the inconsistency.
There is precedent for the regulator taking action when barristers gild the lily. In 2013 Dennis O'Riordan, a partner at Paul Hastings, was suspended from practising as a barrister for three years for falsely claiming on his former chambers' website, and his professional profiles, that he went to school at Radley and studied at Oxford and Harvard.
RollOnFriday asked The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service whether it was opening an investigation into Braverman's alleged massaging of her credentials and, if not, why not, given the importance it has historically placed on barristers telling the truth in their website profiles and CVs. It did not respond.
No 5 Chambers did not respond to an email asking whether Braverman was responsible for the questionable phrasing of her deleted profile.
Never thought I would come out fighting for Braverman, but what a non-story. She went to the chambers as a barrister not a pupil. You don't get junior baqrristers to do the photocopying, that's what clerks are for; but if you do, then she has contributed to the book, hasn't she? Kolvin sounds like a spiv with ihs nose out of joint.
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. Without deep roots, you’ll have to rely on useful, tradeable skills - and your wits - if you’re going to last more than a few months.
"Do they know something we don't? US stocks up on $300m worth of radiation sickness drug - but officials insist it has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's nuke threats The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies' The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"
It is prudent on one way but shows how close we are to western civilisation being wiped out alone with all of us and our families. Whatever the rights and wrongs on Ukraine are , Ukraine is not worth it - Putin needs to save face, Biden said so as much today - something needs to be done soon now to deescalate
I completely agree
The time is coming when we have to make peace with Putin - or we all die
It is not nice. It is horrible. Putin is a Slavic Hitler and his army is barbaric and he deserves total defeat and Russia should be occupied like Japan or Germany in 1945
Nonetheless he has nukes, and that's the end of it. Total defeat of Putin is not on the menu
The Peace needs to be sufficiently punishing of Russia such that they never try this shit again, but also offers him just enough "victory" to save face and retreat in order, his honour "restored". And then a deeply Cold War will ensue, where the West painfully learns to live without Russian energy, and Russia slowly realises it is now dependant on China and India. So be it
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. You need useful, tradeable skills if you’re going to last more than a few months.
The choice would literally be between 99% chance of being evaporated in a nuclear bomb strike or killed a few days later by radiation poisoning or learning some tradeable skills in a country not hit.
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. You need useful, tradeable skills if you’re going to last more than a few months.
The choice would literally be between 99% chance of being evaporated in a nuclear bomb strike or killed a few days later by radiation poisoning or learning some tradeable skills in a country not hit.
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. Without deep roots, you’ll have to rely on useful, tradeable skills - and your wits - if you’re going to last more than a few months.
tourist is a quaint term in that respect ! more like refugee turned servants i woudl think - Is that worth it for an essentially slavic dispute - we need to back off now as Biden indicated before The UK is dead
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. Without deep roots, you’ll have to rely on useful, tradeable skills - and your wits - if you’re going to last more than a few months.
Are being able to argue on PB.com and understanding some of the in jokes useful, tradeable skills? Asking for a friend.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. You need useful, tradeable skills if you’re going to last more than a few months.
The choice would literally be between 99% chance of being evaporated in a nuclear bomb strike or killed a few days later by radiation poisoning or learning some tradeable skills in a country not hit.
"Do they know something we don't? US stocks up on $300m worth of radiation sickness drug - but officials insist it has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's nuke threats The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies' The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"
It is prudent on one way but shows how close we are to western civilisation being wiped out alone with all of us and our families. Whatever the rights and wrongs on Ukraine are , Ukraine is not worth it - Putin needs to save face, Biden said so as much today - something needs to be done soon now to deescalate
I completely agree
The time is coming when we have to make peace with Putin - or we all die
It is not nice. It is horrible. Putin is a Slavic Hitler and his army is barbaric and he deserves total defeat and Russia should be occupied like Japan or Germany in 1945
Nonetheless he has nukes, and that's the end of it. Total defeat of Putin is not on the menu
The Peace needs to be sufficiently punishing of Russia such that they never try this shit again, but also offers him just enough "victory" to save face and retreat in order, his honour "restored". And then a deeply Cold War will ensue, where the West painfully learns to live without Russian energy, and Russia slowly realises it is now dependant on China and India. So be it
That's the BEST outcome, now
Total rubbish.
Explain to me how we completely defeat Putin, utterly expel Russia from Ukraine, and humiliate the Russian military and the Russian nation, without getting far too close to nuclear holocaust?
Is it Keir Starmer's policies they're using now? Is he now the PM?
No, its not.
This is a completely different policy. Closer to Ed Miliband's than Keir Starmer's.
It doesn't look like, swim like or quack like a windfall tax, its a price cap.
Yea - because effectively they were subsidised based on various assumptions on return and the increase in prices means that they are getting way above the expected rate of return. It’s effectively a clawback mechanism - as was in the original contacts
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. You need useful, tradeable skills if you’re going to last more than a few months.
The choice would literally be between 99% chance of being evaporated in a nuclear bomb strike or killed a few days later by radiation poisoning or learning some tradeable skills in a country not hit.
In that case the latter is the only viable choice
Why India? Pakistan has nukes too!
Either would do as both are relatively neutral between Putin and NATO and the Ukraine
I'm still totally baffled how Labour Majority odds are still below 50%...
It all feels very 1994/95 for the Tories before the 1997 landslide
You have to tie up money for a fair bit, and there is always the chance the Tories stop playing silly buggers and start behaving like a governing Party.
I still think LabMaj shoul be about 1.9 so still some value to be had but not nearly as attractive as it was pre-Truss/Kwasi.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated. Edit: and it IS interfering.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Truss may be useless but I am just struggling to see the person that takes over. Can somebody enlighten me?
Boris is a master of the unprecedented; I'd not rule a return out at all. People have short memories re. his failings, and he 'can't be as bad as Truss' etc.
The mechanics are unclear, and I wouldn't say it's likely, but equally I too struggle to see any other obvious candidate.
He is also the solution to the torys mandate problem.
Liz should remove the whip from Johnson to knock him out of contention, use the Privileges Committee report as an excuse.
Does she have the authority? Surely she can’t afford to piss off anyone else?
Nadine has already fired a warning shot.
I assume the party leader has the authority to remove the whip - Johnson did a lot of that in 2019. It would have to be on the back of a damning Privilege Committee report to have any chance of sticking.
It’s notable that she doesn’t have the power/authority to withdraw the whip from Gove.
The bastards aren’t even pretending any more. It’s open warfare.
Turning on Boris looks like suicide, to me.
Good thing Cameron pulled his punches during the referendum to avoid blue and blue.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
She’s not changing the legislation for anyone else - effectively the crown just can get certain exemptions. It’s a bit like the Treasury not paying interest to the Bank of England
To all the ditchers on here I would point out that some kind of peace deal with Russia doesn’t mean that Putin has won. He started this war wanting a puppet government in Kyiv, Ukraine back in the Russian fold and a visibly impotent West. None of those objectives would have been achieved even with an armistice along the current lines of control. There is no conceivable result which is worth the cost of a nuclear war. The only way you can legitimately argue for fighting on for complete Ukrainian victory is if you sincerely believe it won’t result in a nuclear exchange.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland.
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
She’s not changing the legislation for anyone else - effectively the crown just can get certain exemptions. It’s a bit like the Treasury not paying interest to the Bank of England
Your example would be more accurate if it were "Ms Truss makes it unnecessary to have to pay interest on her mortage to the BoE". This is the sovereign interfering in matters affecting her *private* property. Not on.
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. You need useful, tradeable skills if you’re going to last more than a few months.
The choice would literally be between 99% chance of being evaporated in a nuclear bomb strike or killed a few days later by radiation poisoning or learning some tradeable skills in a country not hit.
In that case the latter is the only viable choice
Why India? Pakistan has nukes too!
Either would do as both are relatively neutral between Putin and NATO and the Ukraine
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated. Edit: and it IS interfering.
If the monarch played his constitutional role, then recognizing that “there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House of Commons is not the opinion of the electors”, he would dissolve Parliament.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated. Edit: and it IS interfering.
If the monarch played his constitutional role, then recognizing that “there is fair reason to suppose that the opinion of the House of Commons is not the opinion of the electors”, he would dissolve Parliament.
That is what he is, constitutionally, for. Not to make changes to the law.
I'm still totally baffled how Labour Majority odds are still below 50%...
It all feels very 1994/95 for the Tories before the 1997 landslide
Because no-one believes 50-25 is really going to happen.
But it doesn't need to be 50-25 for a Labour majority, or even all that close to it. They need a reasonable lead, but say 42-33 (an 8% swing back from 50-25) would probably suffice.
I don't think it's a done deal, but share MPartidge's surprise that it's longer than evens on a Labour majority. I think the odds are good value (not free money but decent value).
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
"Do they know something we don't? US stocks up on $300m worth of radiation sickness drug - but officials insist it has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's nuke threats The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies' The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"
It is prudent on one way but shows how close we are to western civilisation being wiped out alone with all of us and our families. Whatever the rights and wrongs on Ukraine are , Ukraine is not worth it - Putin needs to save face, Biden said so as much today - something needs to be done soon now to deescalate
I completely agree
The time is coming when we have to make peace with Putin - or we all die
It is not nice. It is horrible. Putin is a Slavic Hitler and his army is barbaric and he deserves total defeat and Russia should be occupied like Japan or Germany in 1945
Nonetheless he has nukes, and that's the end of it. Total defeat of Putin is not on the menu
The Peace needs to be sufficiently punishing of Russia such that they never try this shit again, but also offers him just enough "victory" to save face and retreat in order, his honour "restored". And then a deeply Cold War will ensue, where the West painfully learns to live without Russian energy, and Russia slowly realises it is now dependant on China and India. So be it
That's the BEST outcome, now
Total rubbish.
Explain to me how we completely defeat Putin, utterly expel Russia from Ukraine, and humiliate the Russian military and the Russian nation, without getting far too close to nuclear holocaust?
Because I can't see it. You need to map it out
The argument is that Putin will use his nukes, because defeat in Ukraine is existential for him, and so he has to take every step to stave off defeat.
The weak point in the argument is the step, defeat in Ukraine is existential.
If we compare to, say, NATO forces rolling into Moscow, although defeat in Ukraine would be a crisis, it would not have the immediacy of enemy military forces entering the capital, or ICBMs passing their apogee. And so the point of reaching for the nuclear button could always be deferred.
Consider, at what point does Putin reach for his nukes? We know he has not used nukes in response to losing territory annexed by Russia, such as Lyman in Donetsk Oblast. Would he use nukes if Kherson City was liberated? I don't see it, after all, he would still hold Crimea, and much else. What if Ukrainian troops had liberated all of the Donbas, and had entered the Crimean peninsula - would that be the trigger point? They'd still hold Sevastopol at that point, they would still have much to lose.
Even if all of Ukraine was liberated, Putin would still have much to lose - Kaliningrad, St Petersburg, Moscow, Sochi - and detonating a nuke at that point would also be too late. It wouldn't get Ukraine back. Insofar as Putin's personal rule would face an existential threat, this would be a threat from internal enemies, not from NATO or Ukraine, and so what use is a nuclear weapon against mutinous Colonels? We already see the post-defeat struggle in Russia begin, with the conflict between Shoigu and Wagner.
The only scenario where first use of a nuclear weapon makes sense is one in which the West has already demonstrated a willingness to be coerced by nuclear threats. In that scenario the demonstration use of a single nuclear weapon could be used to reinforce the lesson, and ensure that coercion could be used to make further gains. Otherwise first use of nuclear weapons always results in a net loss. That's the calculation we have to ensure that Putin makes, that he realises that use of a nuclear weapon will always make the shitty situation he finds himself in worse.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
Not that much, is my thinking.
In the medieval era there was a belief amongst besieged Christian Europeans that an Asiatic saviour, in command of huge forces, was on the cusp of wiping out the Ottomans/Islam from the rear. He was called Prester John
It was a total myth. The same psychic forces, I believe, give more power to India and China than they have, right now
Putin is rogue. He cares about India and China, of course (and ultimately they will will probably subordinate Russia, economically) but right now he probably has racist contempt for them and he only cares about his war with the West, and there is little Beijing can do. Putin has a big army and loads of nukes. He might use them. That's it. What can Beijing do? Threaten to suspend noodle exports?
The mad dog Putin might even believe that a global nuclear exchange is more menacing to densely populated China than it is to enormous Russia. Who knows? Beijing does not know
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Move to Switzerland, Latin America or Africa or India as quickly as you can if it looks like heading that way I suggest
Thing is, you really need deep roots in a community somewhere. Just being a tourist escaping a nuclear war isn’t going to get you very far in such a scenario. You need useful, tradeable skills if you’re going to last more than a few months.
The choice would literally be between 99% chance of being evaporated in a nuclear bomb strike or killed a few days later by radiation poisoning or learning some tradeable skills in a country not hit.
In that case the latter is the only viable choice
Why India? Pakistan has nukes too!
Either would do as both are relatively neutral between Putin and NATO and the Ukraine
But they could nuke one another!
They could and if it looked like nuclear war between Pakistan and India too, then Africa and Latin America would probably be the only significant inhabited areas of the world left to flee to following a nuclear war between Russia and its allies and NATO and its allies
"Do they know something we don't? US stocks up on $300m worth of radiation sickness drug - but officials insist it has nothing to do with Vladimir Putin's nuke threats The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies' The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"
It is prudent on one way but shows how close we are to western civilisation being wiped out alone with all of us and our families. Whatever the rights and wrongs on Ukraine are , Ukraine is not worth it - Putin needs to save face, Biden said so as much today - something needs to be done soon now to deescalate
I completely agree
The time is coming when we have to make peace with Putin - or we all die
It is not nice. It is horrible. Putin is a Slavic Hitler and his army is barbaric and he deserves total defeat and Russia should be occupied like Japan or Germany in 1945
Nonetheless he has nukes, and that's the end of it. Total defeat of Putin is not on the menu
The Peace needs to be sufficiently punishing of Russia such that they never try this shit again, but also offers him just enough "victory" to save face and retreat in order, his honour "restored". And then a deeply Cold War will ensue, where the West painfully learns to live without Russian energy, and Russia slowly realises it is now dependant on China and India. So be it
That's the BEST outcome, now
Total rubbish.
Explain to me how we completely defeat Putin, utterly expel Russia from Ukraine, and humiliate the Russian military and the Russian nation, without getting far too close to nuclear holocaust?
Because I can't see it. You need to map it out
Numerous scenarios.
I think Putin will try to use nukes, and I have said this before, but it will be a tactical ones. This is not the same as a holocaust. He thinks it will frighten Ukr into immediate surrender. It wont. And it is not even clear that his orders will be obeyed. His power is falling by the day as this disaster grows. The public may have no idea what has been going on but the Kremlin factions do.
Biden's response will be highly surgical and conventional but will I think involve frightening chain of command out of their minds.
Seems to me that then parts of the elite/regime will move against him if he goes down that road because they know what comes next. Are they all as suicidal/ill as he is? Is owning a bit of Ukraine worth killing your family for?
Meanwhile, the Ru army falls to pieces in Ukr and is routed as the conscripts arrive and finally and completely bog down an already failing officer class and logistics nightmare. The individual routes in various theatres turn into a quasi mutiny across the entire front as masses of half drunk kids and broken officers just surrender or start walking back to Russia. This could happen within weeks. We are watching one of the greatest military misadventures in a very long time. It is a total clusterfuck.
Players in the game back in Moscow start to panic. Wagner for example. Better to have my troops back here than out there in Ukr? The game is afoot. Rebellion is in the air. They pull back even quicker than the running conscripts.
In short, FWIW, I think those analysts like Tim Synder who say Russian leadership is closer to collapse than it would appear from the nightly bolllx on state TV are right. But maybe I am just being hopefully rather than realistic.
But, I agree, whatever happens this whole thing has meant we have got "far too close to nuclear holocaust".
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.
You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.
Truss may be useless but I am just struggling to see the person that takes over. Can somebody enlighten me?
Boris is a master of the unprecedented; I'd not rule a return out at all. People have short memories re. his failings, and he 'can't be as bad as Truss' etc.
The mechanics are unclear, and I wouldn't say it's likely, but equally I too struggle to see any other obvious candidate.
He is also the solution to the torys mandate problem.
Liz should remove the whip from Johnson to knock him out of contention, use the Privileges Committee report as an excuse.
Does she have the authority? Surely she can’t afford to piss off anyone else?
Nadine has already fired a warning shot.
Maybe ask Jackie Weaver.
Although, of course, she DIDNT have the authority, which I still find hilarious.
"'A risk to the whole planet': Volodymyr Zelensky warns Russian officials are 'already preparing their citizens for nuclear war' - after Ukraine's president backtracked on comments suggesting Nato 'launch pre-emptive strikes' on Putin's forces"
How does Zelensky know? Has he got a direct line to the Kremlin. If he presses on into the disputed 4 regions then the risk of Putin launching a tactical nuke on Ukranian forces grows. However as Ukraine doesn't have nuclear weapons only if he goes to war with NATO would he and we need to prepare for nuclear war
How do you prepare for nuclear war ?
Take up yoga.
With sufficient practice, you'll be able to kiss your arse goodbye.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.
You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.
Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.
You have to dig up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.
It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary
Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
I'm still totally baffled how Labour Majority odds are still below 50%...
It all feels very 1994/95 for the Tories before the 1997 landslide
Because no-one believes 50-25 is really going to happen.
45-30 gives lab majority 80
43-32 lab maj 32
Per electoralcalculus
Yes, and the seat calculator is probably more likely to be underestimating Labour there. In general, the out party tends to do a bit better in targets in "change" elections, and there appears to be polling evidence that the Government is being hurt more in the marginals (45% cut was hardly designed to appeal to northern marginals).
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
It rsefers to all her property in Scotland. Not just Balmoral. In practice, you might find [edit] district heating in the area, but concetnrated in a village where heat was surplus from a distillery. But not all over the landscape. And putting them under the road doesn't make any difference to the landscape.
You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.
Yes and thank goodness it does to protect them from this disgraceful law you and your SNP fanatics wanted to push on Scottish estates.
You have to build up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.
It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
You really are talking nonsense now. Nobody is going to put a district heating system over a countryside area. But what she has done is to ensure that every bit of her property in a village, town or city acts as an obstruction to any energy saving district houysing scheme. You know, we are trying to sace energy as a group of nations just now.
As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.
"Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary
Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.
All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary
Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
Theyt don't. The schemes are at district or location level. This is to ensure that they have the same access as eg BT have to broadband.
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Using a tactical nuclear weapon will not defeat Ukraine. In the current military situation they don't add anything.
Liz Truss has decided to block Bermuda from legalising cannabis by telling the representative of the King to block a bill.
Doesn't seem a very democratic move to me.
That's extremely odd.
Canada's legalisation law presumably got Royal Assent?
Canada is independent. Bermuda is an Overseas Territory.
Canadian laws still require Royal Assent though.
Presumably then HMG doesn't get a say in the Royal Assent for Canadian laws, but does for Bermuda's?
The Governor General gives that assent though on behalf of the King
The Governor General does in Bermuda too.
Who advises the Governor General in both? How come Canada's GG felt it appropriate to approve Royal Assent, but Bermuda's didn't?
Incidentally from the article it seems like it might not be Liz Truss's Government who blocked it? The Governor of Bermuda says "I have now received an instruction, issued to me on Her Majesty’s behalf, not to Assent to the Bill as drafted." If the decision was taken in the past few days the instruction would have come on His Majesty's behalf.
Then again, it says the Foreign Secretary made the decision and Truss was the Foreign Secretary before then, so either way she seems to be responsible.
Canada's Governor General is appointed by the King on the advice of the Canadian government as Canada is an independent state even if a Commonwealth realm.
Bermuda's Governor is directly appointed by the King on the advice of the UK government as it is a UK overseas territory.
That is correct, although I am not sure why you refer to appointment and direct appointment.
Is this the first time that royal assent has been refused by the British monarch since 1708?
Doing well, this new duo, aren't they?
Not sure you can blame the King for this. I think this is all Truss, given the status of Bermuda as a British Overseas Territory which means the UK Government is the National government and the Bermudan Parliament is in effect only a local government. I suspect that were he to grant assent in defiance of the Foreign Secretary or PM it would result in a very rapid constitutional crisis and charges of him overstepping his authority.
Truss should never have put him in this position. At the very least I can see it giving a boost to the Bermudan independence movement.
The Monarch acts on the advice of the British government in relation to the Overseas Territories. This is all Truss
But you keep telling us it's the monarch who is top dog. He gets the credit (or his predecessor), he gets the blame.
No he doesn't, he is a constitutional monarch. It is the government of the day who take the blame
You sure? It will be very interesting to see how normal, ordinary people react to that fiction.
Normal ordinary people know full well we have a constitutional monarch who has to agree to the policies of the government of the day. Otherwise if they did not you would be ranting they had overstepped the mark straight away
"Agreeing" implies there is even any choice.
But consider this, on the other hand (and much else).
The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, especially as most rents on his estates are well below market rate anyway.
The SNP and Green legislation overall is terrible, effectively you cannot even evict tenants who don't pay their rent
'The monarch is also perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property.'
But you and I don't get consulted in secret. You and I have our comments published.
This needs to change asap.
You and I are not the Monarch. The Monarch is perfectly entitled to be consulted on legislation affecting their private property, Parliament can still decide whether to accept or not any suggested amendments.
In any case as I said this SNP-Green legislation is absolutely appalling, effectively giving tenants in Scotland the green light to never pay their rent as landlords cannot evict them
Aah - so Chas says "Change that or I dont' sign."
That's interference.
Or - which is just as bad - we don't know that he doesn't. Or that the laws are watered down in advance.
Justice must not only be done - it has to be seen to be done. And that includes bringing the monarch under the law of the land.
In this case it is the SNP government that is trying to conform to the procedures - and you'd be howling treason if it didn't.
No it isn't, as you can see the text of every piece of statute legislation Parliament has voted through, including how it has affected royal properties. If royal properties are immune from legislation that would be obvious from the text and it would still be Parliament that has voted it through.
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
So it was not secret then as you have just put through what the alleged law change said.
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
"facilitate" is not "have to constdruct".
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Facilitate 'to help forward' ie pave the way for pipelines to wreck the landscape of the entire estate.
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
So you are admitting that HM was interfering with legislation. That's the entire theory of the constitutional momarch exploded in your own words.
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
It's like electricity, gas, broadband, and water. Standard service. You can't block these - and you shouldn't be able to block this new service. So why block it?
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated.
Yes you should, it is an abysmal, disgraceful, appalling, pathetic excuse for a piece of legislation that wants to impose pipelines all over some of the most beautiful and natural estates in Scotland/
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
Those pipelines actually go under the road, like water and so on!
And have to have construction work to put them in, ruining the landscape in the process!
Don't be fucking stupid HYUFD, if the things are buried the disruption is purely temporary
Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
No the roads are dug up, making it impossible for estate rangers and managers to move across the property, meaning the estate falls into disrepair and its whole ecosystem disrupted.
All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating
I'm still totally baffled how Labour Majority odds are still below 50%...
It all feels very 1994/95 for the Tories before the 1997 landslide
Because no-one believes 50-25 is really going to happen.
But it doesn't need to be 50-25 for a Labour majority, or even all that close to it. They need a reasonable lead, but say 42-33 (an 8% swing back from 50-25) would probably suffice.
I don't think it's a done deal, but share MPartidge's surprise that it's longer than evens on a Labour majority. I think the odds are good value (not free money but decent value).
My comment was shorthand for saying there's going to be swingback and no-one knows how much there'll be in two years' time.
That Biden speech is far too coherent to be senile unscripted rambling. Deliberate message to Ukraine same as the dugina leak.
yes the first bit of relief in a way that NATO really does not want to do any more than the status quo. Ukraine will have to live with it or soon find no weapons or support to continue - Its not the greaest moral position but a pragmatic one thats needed now
Elon Musk gets into a twitter argument with Zelenskyy, and then this happens.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️ @AdamKinzinger Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
I've seen a very persuasive argument on Twitter that this is all deliberate and co-ordinated
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
I wonder what China is thinking about all this?
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
NATO should now suspend weapons to Ukraine (quite apart from the ethics anyway of prolonging a unwinable ground war with no end game in sight and clear it will deesacalate ) - Iwoudl suggest the current borders are not the worst outcome for either side so that would be a solution
Why do you say the war is unwinnable? Ukraine is winning the war, and it is doing so without many of the best weapons that NATO could provide it.
It is unwinnable because, in the end, to stave off total defeat (eg perhaps the loss of Crimea), Russia will drop a nuclear bomb
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
Dropping a nuclear bomb will do fuck all to assist Russia. What it will do, is provoke a frightful response by NATO.
Comments
Nadine has already fired a warning shot.
This is a completely different policy. Closer to Ed Miliband's than Keir Starmer's.
It doesn't look like, swim like or quack like a windfall tax, its a price cap.
Suella Braverman has been asked to clarify her academic bona fides after a barrister rubbished the claim that she contributed to his legal textbook.
Braverman’s profile on the website of No5 Chambers, where she worked before becoming an MP, claimed that she "is a contributor to" the 2007 bestseller, Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration.
But Philip Kolvin KC, the book's author, told the Big Issue and confirmed to RollOnFriday that Braverman "did not make a written or editorial contribution to the book".
The extent of her involvement was menial, indicated Kolvin, who said that "on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did".
The embellished CV was published on No5's website before Braverman became an MP, and has now been deleted in full by chambers staff, allegedly at Braverman's request after reporters got in touch to ask her about the inconsistency.
There is precedent for the regulator taking action when barristers gild the lily. In 2013 Dennis O'Riordan, a partner at Paul Hastings, was suspended from practising as a barrister for three years for falsely claiming on his former chambers' website, and his professional profiles, that he went to school at Radley and studied at Oxford and Harvard.
RollOnFriday asked The Bar Tribunals & Adjudication Service whether it was opening an investigation into Braverman's alleged massaging of her credentials and, if not, why not, given the importance it has historically placed on barristers telling the truth in their website profiles and CVs. It did not respond.
No 5 Chambers did not respond to an email asking whether Braverman was responsible for the questionable phrasing of her deleted profile.
https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-content/barrister-casts-doubt-suella-bravermans-cv-claim
(I knew I should have given up flying.)
is an example. 90K of them, though a lot are things like a school's or a factory's memorial. And not all will have services.
See also
https://www.ukwarmemorials.org/
http://www.warmemorials.org/links-england/
"Last year, the Queen’s lawyers secretly lobbied Scottish ministers to change a draft law to exempt her private land from a major initiative to cut carbon emissions. The exemption meant the Queen was the only private landowner in Scotland who was not required to facilitate the construction of pipelines to heat buildings using renewable energy."
Most likely, Truss just brazens it out - she cannot officially be removed for 12 months.
She's a Cambridge educated lawyer, why would you need to pad your CV when that alone confirms your awesomeness?
The US Government makes its first purchase of Nplate for 'nuclear emergencies'
The drug treats radiation sickness by stopping life-threatening bleeding
Putin's nuclear warning did not spur the purchase, the Government said"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11286835/US-buys-290m-worth-radiation-sickness-drugs-amid-Russias-nuclear-threat.html
A different Conservative PM would have been more cynical about keeping the plates spinning until 2024. Let the incoming government have the crash and pains of rebuilding on their watch.
By visibly screwing up so much now, the pain starts on the watch of Truss or her successor as Captain of the Titanic. And Starmer can probably get away with "painful but necessary, cleaning up the Tories' mess" for a good few years.
It might not be enough, but it could be a lot worse.
The bastards aren’t even pretending any more. It’s open warfare.
Turning on Boris looks like suicide, to me.
When it turns out he can't solve our problems fast the buyer's remorse will be intense and sudden. The polling for Labour is absurdly inflated by unfulfillable hopes
Sounds a good move from the Queen too, ludicrous for landowners to have to construct pipelines wrecking the landscape of their estates
The time is coming when we have to make peace with Putin - or we all die
It is not nice. It is horrible. Putin is a Slavic Hitler and his army is barbaric and he deserves total defeat and Russia should be occupied like Japan or Germany in 1945
Nonetheless he has nukes, and that's the end of it. Total defeat of Putin is not on the menu
The Peace needs to be sufficiently punishing of Russia such that they never try this shit again, but also offers him just enough "victory" to save face and retreat in order, his honour "restored". And then a deeply Cold War will ensue, where the West painfully learns to live without Russian energy, and Russia slowly realises it is now dependant on China and India. So be it
That's the BEST outcome, now
I clean forgot the CWGC site as well (more for individual persons I think).
Curious how many websites there are - huge duplication (quite apart from the standard SMR maintained of architectural and archaeological sites).
What is clear is that HMQ is discussing legislation in advance. And changing it.
That is not the conduct of a figurehead. Or a constitional monarch.
Adam Kinzinger🇺🇦🇺🇸✌️
@AdamKinzinger
Evidently the Starlink system is down over the front lines of Ukraine. @elonmusk should make a statement about this, or, this should be investigated. This is a national security issue
https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1578421576428490752
Personally for such appalling legislation I would have had no problem with the monarch vetoing it outright but instead for the Queen to ensure it did not apply to her estate is at least one way of her showing her sympathies with her fellow landowners having to deal with this gross intrusion on their estates while also preserving the royal estates at least from ruin
https://twitter.com/JMeilaender/status/1578421827130359811?s=20&t=HE9GUhZZd_ei-U7dROYJQQ
Note that this week, out of the blue, America suddenly admits that it was Ukrainian agents that killed the daughter of Alexander Dugin (Putin's fave philosopher)
"The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources say."
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1577755532747833345?s=20&t=XNZtrMXrTrX8sCSWS7XqNQ
What an extraordinary thing for the USA to confess, and at this point in time. Cui bono?
Twitter believes that this is America saying to Ukraine: "thus far and no further. We don't want to die in Los Angeles, for Lviv"
I reckon that is probably right, I hope it is right as it is the correct course of action. Ukraine is defeating Russia, but it cannot completely defeat Russia as Putin has nukes and will use them. No one wants that
In that case the latter is the only viable choice
It all feels very 1994/95 for the Tories before the 1997 landslide
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption
Because I can't see it. You need to map it out
Thought not.
I still think LabMaj shoul be about 1.9 so still some value to be had but not nearly as attractive as it was pre-Truss/Kwasi.
Sure they want to see the US knocked off its perch but not at the cost of nuclear war.
How much influence does China have over Putin?
If the Monarch was properly interfering she would have vetoed this wretched, appalling piece of legislation destroying landscapes of estates across Scotland with pipelines.
Instead she let it pass, reluctantly but used her Queen's consent privilege to at least protect the royal estates from this terrible, terrible law
Who are you, Mr Rees-Mogg?
The Crown is being preferentially treated. Edit: and it IS interfering.
Absolutely horrific .
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2022-election-forecast/senate/nevada/
Negotiations at "final hardest yards", with Truss preparing to give ground on more visas
Cheaper rice and clothes imports swap for scotch and British-made car boom
I am sure that will up her popularity, more immigration
As I said I would personally have no problem with the monarch occasionally using their assent power to veto appalling pieces of legislation like this. However the likes of you would then rant 'oh they are now not a proper constitutional monarchy' so at least allowing this legislation to not enable the desecration of the royal estates like Balmoral is something
I don't think it's a done deal, but share MPartidge's surprise that it's longer than evens on a Labour majority. I think the odds are good value (not free money but decent value).
The weak point in the argument is the step, defeat in Ukraine is existential.
If we compare to, say, NATO forces rolling into Moscow, although defeat in Ukraine would be a crisis, it would not have the immediacy of enemy military forces entering the capital, or ICBMs passing their apogee. And so the point of reaching for the nuclear button could always be deferred.
Consider, at what point does Putin reach for his nukes? We know he has not used nukes in response to losing territory annexed by Russia, such as Lyman in Donetsk Oblast. Would he use nukes if Kherson City was liberated? I don't see it, after all, he would still hold Crimea, and much else. What if Ukrainian troops had liberated all of the Donbas, and had entered the Crimean peninsula - would that be the trigger point? They'd still hold Sevastopol at that point, they would still have much to lose.
Even if all of Ukraine was liberated, Putin would still have much to lose - Kaliningrad, St Petersburg, Moscow, Sochi - and detonating a nuke at that point would also be too late. It wouldn't get Ukraine back. Insofar as Putin's personal rule would face an existential threat, this would be a threat from internal enemies, not from NATO or Ukraine, and so what use is a nuclear weapon against mutinous Colonels? We already see the post-defeat struggle in Russia begin, with the conflict between Shoigu and Wagner.
The only scenario where first use of a nuclear weapon makes sense is one in which the West has already demonstrated a willingness to be coerced by nuclear threats. In that scenario the demonstration use of a single nuclear weapon could be used to reinforce the lesson, and ensure that coercion could be used to make further gains. Otherwise first use of nuclear weapons always results in a net loss. That's the calculation we have to ensure that Putin makes, that he realises that use of a nuclear weapon will always make the shitty situation he finds himself in worse.
In the medieval era there was a belief amongst besieged Christian Europeans that an Asiatic saviour, in command of huge forces, was on the cusp of wiping out the Ottomans/Islam from the rear. He was called Prester John
It was a total myth. The same psychic forces, I believe, give more power to India and China than they have, right now
Putin is rogue. He cares about India and China, of course (and ultimately they will will probably subordinate Russia, economically) but right now he probably has racist contempt for them and he only cares about his war with the West, and there is little Beijing can do. Putin has a big army and loads of nukes. He might use them. That's it. What can Beijing do? Threaten to suspend noodle exports?
The mad dog Putin might even believe that a global nuclear exchange is more menacing to densely populated China than it is to enormous Russia. Who knows? Beijing does not know
I think Putin will try to use nukes, and I have said this before, but it will be a tactical ones. This is not the same as a holocaust. He thinks it will frighten Ukr into immediate surrender. It wont. And it is not even clear that his orders will be obeyed. His power is falling by the day as this disaster grows. The public may have no idea what has been going on but the Kremlin factions do.
Biden's response will be highly surgical and conventional but will I think involve frightening chain of command out of their minds.
Seems to me that then parts of the elite/regime will move against him if he goes down that road because they know what comes next. Are they all as suicidal/ill as he is? Is owning a bit of Ukraine worth killing your family for?
Meanwhile, the Ru army falls to pieces in Ukr and is routed as the conscripts arrive and finally and completely bog down an already failing officer class and logistics nightmare. The individual routes in various theatres turn into a quasi mutiny across the entire front as masses of half drunk kids and broken officers just surrender or start walking back to Russia. This could happen within weeks. We are watching one of the greatest military misadventures in a very long time. It is a total clusterfuck.
Players in the game back in Moscow start to panic. Wagner for example. Better to have my troops back here than out there in Ukr? The game is afoot. Rebellion is in the air. They pull back even quicker than the running conscripts.
In short, FWIW, I think those analysts like Tim Synder who say Russian leadership is closer to collapse than it would appear from the nightly bolllx on state TV are right. But maybe I am just being hopefully rather than realistic.
But, I agree, whatever happens this whole thing has meant we have got "far too close to nuclear holocaust".
You've failed anyway - you've claimed it is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property and ensure different treatment from the normal person.
43-32 lab maj 32
Per electoralcalculus
The president and the Doomsday Clock.
By Jonathan Guyer@mideastXmidwestjonathan.guyer@vox.com Oct 7, 2022, 5:22pm EDT"
https://www.vox.com/world/2022/10/7/23393019/how-worried-should-you-be-about-nuclear-war-biden-says-very
Although, of course, she DIDNT have the authority, which I still find hilarious.
With sufficient practice, you'll be able to kiss your arse goodbye.
You have to dig up all the roads and surrounds making getting across the estate to manage it impossible, destroying it in the process anyway.
It is legitimate for the sovereign to interfere with laws affecting personal property, I only wish they could go further and veto terrible laws like this outright if it was not for far left whingers like you whinging 'oh they are no longer a proper constitutional monarch'
Never mind the constitutional issues, the whole concept seems as wacky as fuck, they want the whole of the Highlands on the one central heating system.
That's it. If you have an answer to that other than the pious hope that "Russia would never do that" then we'd all be keen to hear it
As for the roads - eever seen a water main being replaced? Happens all the time.
"Estates". Why aren't you campaigning for the return of male primogeniture and feudal law?
All because of some absurd idea as you suggest to give the Highlands central heating