Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
We would be more likely to get President Ant or President Dec.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Anyone who thinks the science is settled is an idiot.
There's a startling lack of science of this topic and an even greater lack of good science.
I know the UK team working with the Cass review will be publishing some systematic reviews this year, which will tend to underline that, rather than coming to any clear conclusions. A secondary data analysis should also be completed this year, although the data to make any very firm conclusions (unless there's something really startling) will also be lacking, I think.
The only sensible approach I can think of, is to use the legal and moral framework of clinical trials to get good science out of this.
There is a serious issue of consent involved in that approach which needs addressing.
Informed consent is a part of modern clinical trials framework.
My first thought when society encounters an issue is not “We must change everything”. It’s “What have we done before and how did that work out?”
But in this case, you're potentially talking about withholding treatment which is already available in order to do any such trials. In that context, what does informed consent mean ?
It doesn't necessarily need to be a trial (the ethics of that, in which some people are on the control arm where there is some tentative* evidence for benefit, would be interesting, as would the practicalities in which it is very possible to get access to the needed drugs unofficially and the participants cannot be effectively blinded). But mandating proper followup and reporting, with a trial-like structure and design for organisations offering these treatments does seem sensible.
The poor quality data we have on all aspects of gender dysphoria treatment are in large part due to the lack of followup of those who do (and particularly those who do not) undergo various interventions.
*the studies showing this are scientifically crap, but the evidence for harms is also similarly (or even moreso) lacking.
It's essentially a PPV event isn't it? It's being broadcast live on TV channels so you'd need a TV licence to watch it. Counts me out. Guess me and the Mrs will have to load the bikes on the van and head off to somewhere remote.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
Frankly it doesn't matter what "their fellow pensioners" think as they won't be around to be influenced. What my age and those 20-30s whippersnappers think is much more important.
There is evidence that Charles understands the position he is in. Cutting back on the real absurdities (hereditary family coronation gowns???) and on the surplus to requirement hangers on is already happening. He will need to go further.
William and Kate are popular? Vs the true King Harry and Queen Meghan, yes I grant you that. But beyond that? William appears to be a pompous bore, and his missus is pretty but otherwise vacant. They have cute kids. But people's attention spans have shortened and the variety of entertainment is now vast.
I doubt that current generation of Wales's will be willing to perform for the cameras at the pace and intrusion needed to keep them as popular as you claim.
Yes and Charles and Camilla will be dead or have retired by the time 20 to 30 year olds reach 50 and actually decide elections.
Charles is reforming and modernising the monarchy and William and Kate are much more popular with younger people anyway. Our JFK and Jackie.
They aren't popular with whinging leftwingers like you but then few are apart from your fellow socialists
It's essentially a PPV event isn't it? It's being broadcast live on TV channels so you'd need a TV licence to watch it. Counts me out. Guess me and the Mrs will have to load the bikes on the van and head off to somewhere remote.
The BBC is to suspend the licence fee as part of a one-off dispensation for the king’s coronation weekend.
The move will allow venues to screen the live coronation ceremony coverage on 6 May and the coronation concert on 7 May without needing to buy a TV licence.
Well I’m 50 and I’m avoiding the coronation by going to France for the weekend, it’s nothing personal we did the same for Diana’s funeral.
Ironically twin A will actually be there but we didn’t know that when we booked the flights.
This is my plans for that weekend.
The leader of Britain’s largest anti-monarchist group says more than 1,350 people have pledged to protest during the coronation parade in May.
Graham Smith, the head of Republic, said the demonstration would mark “the largest protest action” in the group’s 50-year history.
Republic activists will wear yellow T-shirts and wave yellow placards to create an “unmissable sea of yellow” along the procession route in central London, he said. When the newly crowned King passes in his gold stage coach, they plan to boo loudly and chant: “Not my King”.
Most of the demonstration will be in Trafalgar Square but smaller groups of anti-monarchists will be dotted along other sections of the route.
Smith, 48, said activists would aim to arrive early in the morning to be as close to the barriers as possible. He stressed, however, that they were not planning any Extinction Rebellion-style stunts, because “it’s not a good look” and “doesn’t help the cause”.
Because of this we have decided to go up to London specifically to boo Republic and cheer the King. We will watch the coronation service on catch up. Many monarchists will be doing similar.
I will be reserving an extra large 'boo hiss' for TSE if I see him!!
If people want to change the constitutional role (how much it costs, whether there should be more political oversight, more records made public etc) fair enough, but abolishing it would be a mistake in my view.
The monarchy is wrapped up in the idea of the nation state and even national identity: a nebulous and almost mystical function as opposed to the utilitarian purpose of most other state institutions.
A hereditary head of state is arbitrary, based on history and accident. But, then, so is any nation state.
Don't think it will improve the functioning of politics and the state. The French removed their monarch completely, and it was a big mistake in the long term (as President Macron has, sort of, acknowledged). They change their constitution fundamentally every 60 years or so, and now have the most monarchical form of government in the democratic world. The French constitution was even cited as a model by Erdogan in his attempts to amass more power in Turkey.
If you must, abolish the hereditary principle, but at least retain the title of king. Kings of Poland and Holy Roman Emperors were elected, after all (if only by very small electorates back then). But keep the title and as much of the trappings as you can.
It's essentially a PPV event isn't it? It's being broadcast live on TV channels so you'd need a TV licence to watch it. Counts me out. Guess me and the Mrs will have to load the bikes on the van and head off to somewhere remote.
The BBC is to suspend the licence fee as part of a one-off dispensation for the king’s coronation weekend.
The move will allow venues to screen the live coronation ceremony coverage on 6 May and the coronation concert on 7 May without needing to buy a TV licence.
📢 Final Eurostat data confirm that the main reason for the UK's relatively high headline #inflation rate is still #energy prices, with little difference in #food price inflation, or the 'core' rates... 👇
(These are the 'harmonised' CPIs, which may differ from 'national' rates)
Why are we so fskced on energy prices? Is there a fundamental difference, or just that other countries did things in a different way - more subsidy to reduce the apparent charged prices, rather than payments to households to help meet inflated prices, which then artificially holds down energy inflation?
It's essentially a PPV event isn't it? It's being broadcast live on TV channels so you'd need a TV licence to watch it. Counts me out. Guess me and the Mrs will have to load the bikes on the van and head off to somewhere remote.
The BBC is to suspend the licence fee as part of a one-off dispensation for the king’s coronation weekend.
The move will allow venues to screen the live coronation ceremony coverage on 6 May and the coronation concert on 7 May without needing to buy a TV licence.
That's for venues who are putting on an event.
Your lounge counts - I doubt anyone would be round to check. Make sure you get the Flegs out though...
It's essentially a PPV event isn't it? It's being broadcast live on TV channels so you'd need a TV licence to watch it. Counts me out. Guess me and the Mrs will have to load the bikes on the van and head off to somewhere remote.
The BBC is to suspend the licence fee as part of a one-off dispensation for the king’s coronation weekend.
The move will allow venues to screen the live coronation ceremony coverage on 6 May and the coronation concert on 7 May without needing to buy a TV licence.
That's for venues who are putting on an event.
Your lounge counts - I doubt anyone would be round to check. Make sure you get the Flegs out though...
It's illegal for me to watch it. That's fantastic.
Anyone who thinks the science is settled is an idiot.
There's a startling lack of science of this topic and an even greater lack of good science.
I know the UK team working with the Cass review will be publishing some systematic reviews this year, which will tend to underline that, rather than coming to any clear conclusions. A secondary data analysis should also be completed this year, although the data to make any very firm conclusions (unless there's something really startling) will also be lacking, I think.
The only sensible approach I can think of, is to use the legal and moral framework of clinical trials to get good science out of this.
There is a serious issue of consent involved in that approach which needs addressing.
Informed consent is a part of modern clinical trials framework.
My first thought when society encounters an issue is not “We must change everything”. It’s “What have we done before and how did that work out?”
But in this case, you're potentially talking about withholding treatment which is already available in order to do any such trials. In that context, what does informed consent mean ?
It doesn't necessarily need to be a trial (the ethics of that, in which some people are on the control arm where there is some tentative* evidence for benefit, would be interesting, as would the practicalities in which it is very possible to get access to the needed drugs unofficially and the participants cannot be effectively blinded). But mandating proper followup and reporting, with a trial-like structure and design for organisations offering these treatments does seem sensible.
The poor quality data we have on all aspects of gender dysphoria treatment are in large part due to the lack of followup of those who do (and particularly those who do not) undergo various interventions.
*the studies showing this are scientifically crap, but the evidence for harms is also similarly (or even moreso) lacking.
I agree with much of that. My point was that many of those saying "clinical trials" are basically handwaving the problem away.
There is also a deep - and in many cases justified - distrust of the medical profession on the part of transgender individuals. I know that the treatment my son has encountered has ranged from sympathetic, to downright unprofessional and undisguised hostility.
The only way the republican debate really breaks through in this country is when people really start caring about it. That requires the monarch to do something egregiously scandalous, unconstitutional or deeply unpopular.
The monarchy survives in this country because nobody really cares enough to change it. It is rooted in deep seated apathy among most of the population and cosy patriotic support among a significant minority. There’s no groundswell of desire for a different system.
📢 Final Eurostat data confirm that the main reason for the UK's relatively high headline #inflation rate is still #energy prices, with little difference in #food price inflation, or the 'core' rates... 👇
(These are the 'harmonised' CPIs, which may differ from 'national' rates)
Why are we so fskced on energy prices? Is there a fundamental difference, or just that other countries did things in a different way - more subsidy to reduce the apparent charged prices, rather than payments to households to help meet inflated prices, which then artificially holds down energy inflation?
Just a thought, but maybe some other countries don't contract out the provision of an essential public service to a) privateers b) governments of foreign countries?
The only way the republican debate really breaks through in this country is when people really start caring about it. That requires the monarch to do something egregiously scandalous, unconstitutional or deeply unpopular.
The monarchy survives in this country because nobody really cares enough to change it. It is rooted in deep seated apathy among most of the population and cosy patriotic support among a significant minority. There’s no groundswell of desire for a different system.
I think that's true amongst the white population, who are 5:1 in favour of the monarchy, according to YouGov. But amongst the non-white population, with perhaps less identification with the country's traditions and history, or perhaps ancestral memories of colonial rule (or maybe both), republican sentiment is always far stronger.
As the former are 89% of the country's population, my guess is that we will be a monarchy for the foreseesable future.
The only way the republican debate really breaks through in this country is when people really start caring about it. That requires the monarch to do something egregiously scandalous, unconstitutional or deeply unpopular.
The monarchy survives in this country because nobody really cares enough to change it. It is rooted in deep seated apathy among most of the population and cosy patriotic support among a significant minority. There’s no groundswell of desire for a different system.
That's right. I'm a republican but a) don't really care that much and b) can't see any way a republic will ever command enough enthusiasm to make it happen.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
The overwhelming majority of free, democratic nations around the world are republics. Quite popular, I would say!
The majority of dictatorships are Republics. No constitutional monarchy nation is however
The only constitutional monarchy I can think of which ever became a dictatorship was Italy under Mussolini. And it was the King that eventually dismissed him.
The only way the republican debate really breaks through in this country is when people really start caring about it. That requires the monarch to do something egregiously scandalous, unconstitutional or deeply unpopular.
The monarchy survives in this country because nobody really cares enough to change it. It is rooted in deep seated apathy among most of the population and cosy patriotic support among a significant minority. There’s no groundswell of desire for a different system.
I think that's true amongst the white population, who are 5:1 in favour of the monarchy, according to YouGov. But amongst the non-white population, with perhaps less identification with the country's traditions and history, or perhaps ancestral memories of colonial rule (or maybe both), republican sentiment is always far stronger.
As the former are 89% of the country's population, my guess is that we will be a monarchy for the foreseesable future.
It is hard to see any of the political parties with a chance of power putting a referendum on the monarchy in a manifesto in the foreseeable future. It risks alieanating too many voters, no actual gains for the average person (aside from the obsessives). Until a party thinks its a vote winner, the monarchy is here to stay.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
For most people, there's no reason to change. "But they aren't elected!" is a niche viewpoint - and naturally invites the President Blair riposte.
The only way the republican debate really breaks through in this country is when people really start caring about it. That requires the monarch to do something egregiously scandalous, unconstitutional or deeply unpopular.
The monarchy survives in this country because nobody really cares enough to change it. It is rooted in deep seated apathy among most of the population and cosy patriotic support among a significant minority. There’s no groundswell of desire for a different system.
I think that's true amongst the white population, who are 5:1 in favour of the monarchy, according to YouGov. But amongst the non-white population, with perhaps less identification with the country's traditions and history, or perhaps ancestral memories of colonial rule (or maybe both), republican sentiment is always far stronger.
As the former are 89% of the country's population, my guess is that we will be a monarchy for the foreseesable future.
The overwhelming majority of Commonwealth nations are republics.
Money grubbing monarchy, charging us to watch Chaz's shindig.🤡
Didn't you get an invite. It wasn't difficult to get one as twin A has one...
Who is Twin A?
I have 21 year old twin girls - for convenience online I use twin A / B rather than their names.
twin b has exams so didn't apply to attend, twin a did and there were more places available than are attending (probably because most of the Scouts who qualified are students and in early May students have exams to worry about.
The battle the Scottish government cares most about winning, perhaps the only one it really cares about, is over who gets to tell the story of what this case is about, in the media and online. But here’s the story it doesn’t want up in lights. That the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill recklessly or deliberately upsets the operation of the Equality Act, not least its protections for women. That ministers were warned about this risk repeatedly and dealt brutally with those raising it. That concern about this effect of the bill, among other impacts on reserved matters, is what has prompted the UK government to invoke Section 35.
Scottish ministers are not keen we be aware that the UK government set out its reasoning in a detailed 13-page document. The Scottish government’s written parliamentary answer published last week consisted of 392 words.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
For most people, there's no reason to change. "But they aren't elected!" is a niche viewpoint - and naturally invites the President Blair riposte.
But why would Bliar be elected when he is so unpopular? Monarchists please explain!
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
For most people, there's no reason to change. "But they aren't elected!" is a niche viewpoint - and naturally invites the President Blair riposte.
But why would Bliar be elected when he is so unpopular? Monarchists please explain!
Blair won 3 elections, Johnson would still likely be UK President if we were a republic like France or the US
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
For most people, there's no reason to change. "But they aren't elected!" is a niche viewpoint - and naturally invites the President Blair riposte.
But why would Bliar be elected when he is so unpopular? Monarchists please explain!
He was very popular indeed at one stage. But that was a long time ago. Before you were born, probably.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
For most people, there's no reason to change. "But they aren't elected!" is a niche viewpoint - and naturally invites the President Blair riposte.
But why would Bliar be elected when he is so unpopular? Monarchists please explain!
He was the future once, and in the mid-90s could certainly have been elected as president.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
For most people, there's no reason to change. "But they aren't elected!" is a niche viewpoint - and naturally invites the President Blair riposte.
But why would Bliar be elected when he is so unpopular? Monarchists please explain!
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
I don't care. I am not German.
Given one of their Presidents was one Adolf Hitler within the last 100 years we don't need lectures from them on our constitutional monarchy!!!
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
For most people, there's no reason to change. "But they aren't elected!" is a niche viewpoint - and naturally invites the President Blair riposte.
But why would Bliar be elected when he is so unpopular? Monarchists please explain!
The "President Blair riposte" is just seems daft to me. I think it might be because a lot of people in Britain when they hear the word "president" don't get any further than thinking of US presidents. I'm pretty sure that most UK republicans would be arguing for a non-executive president, as in many other countries, rather than completely ripping up the current system of parliamentary democracy.
We ought to have a lottery every 4 years for head of state. The winner gets a million quid a year for the 4 years, but has to be on call to do events, greet other heads of state, kiss babies and what have you. Monarchy. Sorted.
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
I don't care. I am not German.
Capt Darling: I'm as British as Queen Victoria! Capt Blackadder: So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German!
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
I don't care. I am not German.
Given one of their Presidents was one Adolf Hitler within the last 100 years we don't need lectures from them on our constitutional monarchy!!!
We ought to have a lottery every 4 years for head of state. The winner gets a million quid a year for the 4 years, but has to be on call to do events, greet other heads of state, kiss babies and what have you. Monarchy. Sorted.
That is not monarchy, just random selection. Monarchy is normally hereditary
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
I don't care. I am not German.
Given one of their Presidents was one Adolf Hitler within the last 100 years we don't need lectures from them on our constitutional monarchy!!!
Quite right, unlike our own dear royal family. Must be in the genes..
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
The popularity of the monarchy can only be rationally measured by comparisons (with detail) with the alternatives.
Indeed. A recent German poll had 8% in favour of Germany becoming a monarchy.
The current German President is a non entity barely anyone outside Germany has heard of who only got the job as a consolation prize after Merkel beat him for the Chancellry in 2013
Yes the "do you really want a non-entity as head of state?" is at least a valid, and interesting, argument. The often-repeated "do you really want President Blair?" is just bullshit.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
I don't care. I am not German.
Given one of their Presidents was one Adolf Hitler within the last 100 years we don't need lectures from them on our constitutional monarchy!!!
And I'm sure you won't find any lectures from them, so you can relax.
I'm just trying to answer the question of whether monarchies or republics are more popular. So far as I can tell, the status quo is the most popular option in most European democracies - but with a tendency for monarchies to be less popular in monarchies than republics are in republics.
Anyone who thinks the science is settled is an idiot.
There's a startling lack of science of this topic and an even greater lack of good science.
I know the UK team working with the Cass review will be publishing some systematic reviews this year, which will tend to underline that, rather than coming to any clear conclusions. A secondary data analysis should also be completed this year, although the data to make any very firm conclusions (unless there's something really startling) will also be lacking, I think.
The only sensible approach I can think of, is to use the legal and moral framework of clinical trials to get good science out of this.
There is a serious issue of consent involved in that approach which needs addressing.
Informed consent is a part of modern clinical trials framework.
My first thought when society encounters an issue is not “We must change everything”. It’s “What have we done before and how did that work out?”
But in this case, you're potentially talking about withholding treatment which is already available in order to do any such trials. In that context, what does informed consent mean ?
It doesn't necessarily need to be a trial (the ethics of that, in which some people are on the control arm where there is some tentative* evidence for benefit, would be interesting, as would the practicalities in which it is very possible to get access to the needed drugs unofficially and the participants cannot be effectively blinded). But mandating proper followup and reporting, with a trial-like structure and design for organisations offering these treatments does seem sensible.
The poor quality data we have on all aspects of gender dysphoria treatment are in large part due to the lack of followup of those who do (and particularly those who do not) undergo various interventions.
*the studies showing this are scientifically crap, but the evidence for harms is also similarly (or even moreso) lacking.
I agree with much of that. My point was that many of those saying "clinical trials" are basically handwaving the problem away.
There is also a deep - and in many cases justified - distrust of the medical profession on the part of transgender individuals. I know that the treatment my son has encountered has ranged from sympathetic, to downright unprofessional and undisguised hostility.
Sex Matters have published three papers you might find interesting:
We ought to have a lottery every 4 years for head of state. The winner gets a million quid a year for the 4 years, but has to be on call to do events, greet other heads of state, kiss babies and what have you. Monarchy. Sorted.
That is not monarchy, just random selection. Monarchy is normally hereditary
Normally, but not necessarily. There is nothing about monarchy which has to be hereditary.
Anyone who thinks the science is settled is an idiot.
There's a startling lack of science of this topic and an even greater lack of good science.
I know the UK team working with the Cass review will be publishing some systematic reviews this year, which will tend to underline that, rather than coming to any clear conclusions. A secondary data analysis should also be completed this year, although the data to make any very firm conclusions (unless there's something really startling) will also be lacking, I think.
The only sensible approach I can think of, is to use the legal and moral framework of clinical trials to get good science out of this.
There is a serious issue of consent involved in that approach which needs addressing.
Informed consent is a part of modern clinical trials framework.
My first thought when society encounters an issue is not “We must change everything”. It’s “What have we done before and how did that work out?”
But in this case, you're potentially talking about withholding treatment which is already available in order to do any such trials. In that context, what does informed consent mean ?
It doesn't necessarily need to be a trial (the ethics of that, in which some people are on the control arm where there is some tentative* evidence for benefit, would be interesting, as would the practicalities in which it is very possible to get access to the needed drugs unofficially and the participants cannot be effectively blinded). But mandating proper followup and reporting, with a trial-like structure and design for organisations offering these treatments does seem sensible.
The poor quality data we have on all aspects of gender dysphoria treatment are in large part due to the lack of followup of those who do (and particularly those who do not) undergo various interventions.
*the studies showing this are scientifically crap, but the evidence for harms is also similarly (or even moreso) lacking.
I agree with much of that. My point was that many of those saying "clinical trials" are basically handwaving the problem away.
There is also a deep - and in many cases justified - distrust of the medical profession on the part of transgender individuals. I know that the treatment my son has encountered has ranged from sympathetic, to downright unprofessional and undisguised hostility.
Yes. Trials are a great answer for new things. Given where we are, I think we need to continue to offer treatment on a 'best guess' basis while giving individuals the chance to make as informed consent as possible (it's hard to be very informed when the outcomes of having or not having treatment are so uncertain) and making sure we gather the evidence so that young people presenting in five or ten years time will be able to make far better informed decisions.
One of the good things I've heard about the Tavistock is that it provided a very welcoming and non-judgemental environment for young people. There are, of course, other concerns over how balanced the approach was.
As with many things, it comes down in part to a lack of funding/investment. CAMHS are chronically underfunded and while being transgender is certainly not a mental health issue, a proper rounded assessment is vital, I think. There needs to be - as far as possible - a good understanding of whether gender is really the core issue for an individual or whether there are other things that should be addressed either instead or as well. I think! But even on this there isn't really clear evidence - we don't know whether recent apparent increases are pre-existing need now being better recognised or really new thing that may be, in part, mixed up with other things.
I'm sorry to hear about your son's mixed experiences. One thing is for sure, the current system (by which I mean healthcare system in general, much more than just the Tavistock) wasn't working.
ETA: And I think my earlier comment about Sweden was wrong, or at least misleading. I haven't read their docs closely, but I believe the position is to continue to offer treatment as part of research, rather than requiring it to be part of a trial. I was very unclear in what I wrote.
Interesting that Drakeford and Welsh labour have resolved the problem of the boats
Just turn up in Wales !!!!!!!
Labour plans to give young asylum-seekers in Wales £1,600 a month and taxpayers' cash to fight deportation
Labour ministers in Wales have announced plans that could see young asylum seekers in the country receive £1,600 a month and taxpayers' cash for legal aid to fight deportation.
The plan, which has been formally sent to Tory Justice Minister Lord Bellamy, is still in the development stage and would need Whitehall approval to go ahead.
Three Welsh Labour ministers - Jane Hutt, Julie Morgan and Mick Antoniw - are signatories of the letter, which demands that all migrants aged 18 and over should get universal basic income without being deprived of legal aid.
The UK Government spends around £6million a day accommodating migrants across the country in hotels, former military bases and barges.
Under the Welsh plan, the Government would provide migrants with both a wage and their lawyers' fees to stop them being deported, reports The Sun.
We ought to have a lottery every 4 years for head of state. The winner gets a million quid a year for the 4 years, but has to be on call to do events, greet other heads of state, kiss babies and what have you. Monarchy. Sorted.
That is not monarchy, just random selection. Monarchy is normally hereditary
I know. We're sorting the monarchy by doing away with it.
We ought to have a lottery every 4 years for head of state. The winner gets a million quid a year for the 4 years, but has to be on call to do events, greet other heads of state, kiss babies and what have you. Monarchy. Sorted.
That is not monarchy, just random selection. Monarchy is normally hereditary
Normally, but not necessarily. There is nothing about monarchy which has to be hereditary.
It used to be whoever could get to Winchester first.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
We were a republic for 11 years, you know! Two whole electoral cycles!
(that was a message from the Committee to Restore the Republic of 1649)
The Commonwealth is a good example of a state that was a monarchy in all but name.
And so awful we restored the monarchy soon after with Charles II
Unfortunately, it did become a dictatorship, but, BUT had it been far more democratic and more partial towards Catholics/the Irish, it would be still with us today.
Note that the British Empire re-used the term "Commonwealth" in 1931 (or 1926 if you prefer).
Anyone who thinks the science is settled is an idiot.
There's a startling lack of science of this topic and an even greater lack of good science.
I know the UK team working with the Cass review will be publishing some systematic reviews this year, which will tend to underline that, rather than coming to any clear conclusions. A secondary data analysis should also be completed this year, although the data to make any very firm conclusions (unless there's something really startling) will also be lacking, I think.
The only sensible approach I can think of, is to use the legal and moral framework of clinical trials to get good science out of this.
The tragedy in this is that it’s possible that the “Affirmative Care” model may be the right course for some candidates, while it’s simply castration and mutilation for others. So GOP states will stop all care while Dem states will carry on castrating. And children will be the victims.
As American cultural commentator Tim Pool points out, there will quickly be a conservative majority in the US, if the liberals keep having abortions and castrating their children, as the conservatives have large families.
He is assuming that conservative voters behave conservatively in their own lives and liberal voters behave liberally in their own lives. They may not. The freedom which people seem to seek the most is the freedom to inhibit others, not themselves. A Republican voter who seeks to prohibit abortion in public may assiduously seek one in private.
Anyone who thinks the science is settled is an idiot.
There's a startling lack of science of this topic and an even greater lack of good science.
I know the UK team working with the Cass review will be publishing some systematic reviews this year, which will tend to underline that, rather than coming to any clear conclusions. A secondary data analysis should also be completed this year, although the data to make any very firm conclusions (unless there's something really startling) will also be lacking, I think.
The only sensible approach I can think of, is to use the legal and moral framework of clinical trials to get good science out of this.
There is a serious issue of consent involved in that approach which needs addressing.
Informed consent is a part of modern clinical trials framework.
My first thought when society encounters an issue is not “We must change everything”. It’s “What have we done before and how did that work out?”
But in this case, you're potentially talking about withholding treatment which is already available in order to do any such trials. In that context, what does informed consent mean ?
It doesn't necessarily need to be a trial (the ethics of that, in which some people are on the control arm where there is some tentative* evidence for benefit, would be interesting, as would the practicalities in which it is very possible to get access to the needed drugs unofficially and the participants cannot be effectively blinded). But mandating proper followup and reporting, with a trial-like structure and design for organisations offering these treatments does seem sensible.
The poor quality data we have on all aspects of gender dysphoria treatment are in large part due to the lack of followup of those who do (and particularly those who do not) undergo various interventions.
*the studies showing this are scientifically crap, but the evidence for harms is also similarly (or even moreso) lacking.
I agree with much of that. My point was that many of those saying "clinical trials" are basically handwaving the problem away.
There is also a deep - and in many cases justified - distrust of the medical profession on the part of transgender individuals. I know that the treatment my son has encountered has ranged from sympathetic, to downright unprofessional and undisguised hostility.
Yes. Trials are a great answer for new things. Given where we are, I think we need to continue to offer treatment on a 'best guess' basis while giving individuals the chance to make as informed consent as possible (it's hard to be very informed when the outcomes of having or not having treatment are so uncertain) and making sure we gather the evidence so that young people presenting in five or ten years time will be able to make far better informed decisions.
One of the good things I've heard about the Tavistock is that it provided a very welcoming and non-judgemental environment for young people. There are, of course, other concerns over how balanced the approach was.
As with many things, it comes down in part to a lack of funding/investment. CAMHS are chronically underfunded and while being transgender is certainly not a mental health issue, a proper rounded assessment is vital, I think. There needs to be - as far as possible - a good understanding of whether gender is really the core issue for an individual or whether there are other things that should be addressed either instead or as well. I think! But even on this there isn't really clear evidence - we don't know whether recent apparent increases are pre-existing need now being better recognised or really new thing that may be, in part, mixed up with other things.
I'm sorry to hear about your son's mixed experiences. One thing is for sure, the current system (by which I mean healthcare system in general, much more than just the Tavistock) wasn't working.
ETA: And I think my earlier comment about Sweden was wrong, or at least misleading. I haven't read their docs closely, but I believe the position is to continue to offer treatment as part of research, rather than requiring it to be part of a trial. I was very unclear in what I wrote.
If you read the Mermaids website you would think that they are simply expanding the Tavistock nationally.
If you read the Cass Review you will see that there was a large number of failings at the Tavistock for me the most damning of which was that issues other than those around gender potentially contributing to mental health and anxiety were ignored.
📢 Final Eurostat data confirm that the main reason for the UK's relatively high headline #inflation rate is still #energy prices, with little difference in #food price inflation, or the 'core' rates... 👇
(These are the 'harmonised' CPIs, which may differ from 'national' rates)
Why are we so fskced on energy prices? Is there a fundamental difference, or just that other countries did things in a different way - more subsidy to reduce the apparent charged prices, rather than payments to households to help meet inflated prices, which then artificially holds down energy inflation?
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
Frankly it doesn't matter what "their fellow pensioners" think as they won't be around to be influenced. What my age and those 20-30s whippersnappers think is much more important.
There is evidence that Charles understands the position he is in. Cutting back on the real absurdities (hereditary family coronation gowns???) and on the surplus to requirement hangers on is already happening. He will need to go further.
William and Kate are popular? Vs the true King Harry and Queen Meghan, yes I grant you that. But beyond that? William appears to be a pompous bore, and his missus is pretty but otherwise vacant. They have cute kids. But people's attention spans have shortened and the variety of entertainment is now vast.
I doubt that current generation of Wales's will be willing to perform for the cameras at the pace and intrusion needed to keep them as popular as you claim.
People get wiser with age. The monarchy will survive. The Alternstive is unthinkable.
Interesting to think that if someone had happened to baby Charles we would now have King Andrew. And if something had happened to baby William we would be looking forward to a future King Harry.
We ought to have a lottery every 4 years for head of state. The winner gets a million quid a year for the 4 years, but has to be on call to do events, greet other heads of state, kiss babies and what have you. Monarchy. Sorted.
That is not monarchy, just random selection. Monarchy is normally hereditary
Normally, but not necessarily. There is nothing about monarchy which has to be hereditary.
Indeed. And what constitutes heredity is always debatable, often at the point of a sword or an axe.
📢 Final Eurostat data confirm that the main reason for the UK's relatively high headline #inflation rate is still #energy prices, with little difference in #food price inflation, or the 'core' rates... 👇
(These are the 'harmonised' CPIs, which may differ from 'national' rates)
Why are we so fskced on energy prices? Is there a fundamental difference, or just that other countries did things in a different way - more subsidy to reduce the apparent charged prices, rather than payments to households to help meet inflated prices, which then artificially holds down energy inflation?
We’re close to the middle of the pack across the EU, so it’s not clear to me why our energy inflation is so high relative to other EU nations.
Isn't the UK energy mix fairly gas-dependent and generally based on shorter term supply contracts? Efficient and flexible most of the time but vulnerable to spikes.
Plus the insulation of our housing stock is pretty shoddy.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
You could also rape your wife until recently, yet no-one thinks its wrong we got rid of that.
Ask yourself WHY we had Kings and Queens. Back in the day rulers emerged in societies, undoubtedly the strongest and most charismatic, to lead the small bands of humans. Some stone age societies do things very differently.
Once a model of the strong leader is established its in said leader(s) hands to stay in power with that system. The Anglo-Saxons didn't rely on the hereditary approach - the Witan would appoint the next King. This has changed through time.
Arguably, its time is over. Does a nation need a King? The nations of the world suggest not really. Do you have to have a figurehead? Possibly its useful. How do you arrive at said figurehead? There's the rub. Ex politicians (e,g, Blair, May, Brown and so on) have lots of baggage and many would be unhappy.
However there are in society elder statesmen and women who most could live with. David Attenborough, Mary Berry, Ken Bruce...
Controversy free folk, who people generally like.
Lets have one of those, not some prat who happened to fall out of the last queen at the right time.
Interesting to think that if someone had happened to baby Charles we would now have King Andrew. And if something had happened to baby William we would be looking forward to a future King Harry.
Whilst true, it seems unlikely that Andrew in particular as heir apparent would have been able to carry on in the way he did as a minor prince. Harry is slightly more debateable but given that he defines himself as "spare" it seems unlikely he'd have fallen under the spell of someone so toxic if he were second in line.
Anyone who thinks the science is settled is an idiot.
There's a startling lack of science of this topic and an even greater lack of good science.
I know the UK team working with the Cass review will be publishing some systematic reviews this year, which will tend to underline that, rather than coming to any clear conclusions. A secondary data analysis should also be completed this year, although the data to make any very firm conclusions (unless there's something really startling) will also be lacking, I think.
The only sensible approach I can think of, is to use the legal and moral framework of clinical trials to get good science out of this.
The tragedy in this is that it’s possible that the “Affirmative Care” model may be the right course for some candidates, while it’s simply castration and mutilation for others. So GOP states will stop all care while Dem states will carry on castrating. And children will be the victims.
As American cultural commentator Tim Pool points out, there will quickly be a conservative majority in the US, if the liberals keep having abortions and castrating their children, as the conservatives have large families.
He is assuming that conservative voters behave conservatively in their own lives and liberal voters behave liberally in their own lives. They may not. The freedom which people seem to seek the most is the freedom to inhibit others, not themselves. A Republican voter who seeks to prohibit abortion in public may assiduously seek one in private.
The "keep having abortions and castrating their children" bit is obviously silly.
But isn't it maybe true that conservatives have larger families in the US? They'd still have to make sure the offspring don't think for themselves though.
📢 Final Eurostat data confirm that the main reason for the UK's relatively high headline #inflation rate is still #energy prices, with little difference in #food price inflation, or the 'core' rates... 👇
(These are the 'harmonised' CPIs, which may differ from 'national' rates)
Why are we so fskced on energy prices? Is there a fundamental difference, or just that other countries did things in a different way - more subsidy to reduce the apparent charged prices, rather than payments to households to help meet inflated prices, which then artificially holds down energy inflation?
Despite a typical thread header from ardent Republican TSE I don't think these numbers should worry the monarchy. About half the population will still watch or take part in celebrating the coronation guaranteeing it huge viewing figures still and it will also bring in lots of tourism.
Remember too Charles and Camilla are most popular with their fellow pensioners, so no surprises that generation are the ones most interested in their coronation. William and Kate are popular across the generations though. Longer term constitutional monarchy will also be preferred over a President Johnson or President Blair
Frankly it doesn't matter what "their fellow pensioners" think as they won't be around to be influenced. What my age and those 20-30s whippersnappers think is much more important.
There is evidence that Charles understands the position he is in. Cutting back on the real absurdities (hereditary family coronation gowns???) and on the surplus to requirement hangers on is already happening. He will need to go further.
William and Kate are popular? Vs the true King Harry and Queen Meghan, yes I grant you that. But beyond that? William appears to be a pompous bore, and his missus is pretty but otherwise vacant. They have cute kids. But people's attention spans have shortened and the variety of entertainment is now vast.
I doubt that current generation of Wales's will be willing to perform for the cameras at the pace and intrusion needed to keep them as popular as you claim.
People get wiser with age. The monarchy will survive. The Alternstive is unthinkable.
There are many alternatives, many of which are perfectly plausible.
Interesting to think that if someone had happened to baby Charles we would now have King Andrew. And if something had happened to baby William we would be looking forward to a future King Harry.
Whilst true, it seems unlikely that Andrew in particular as heir apparent would have been able to carry on in the way he did as a minor prince. Harry is slightly more debateable but given that he defines himself as "spare" it seems unlikely he'd have fallen under the spell of someone so toxic if he were second in line.
True but bluntly speaking neither are considered to be the brightest. How would they manage as King?
📢 Final Eurostat data confirm that the main reason for the UK's relatively high headline #inflation rate is still #energy prices, with little difference in #food price inflation, or the 'core' rates... 👇
(These are the 'harmonised' CPIs, which may differ from 'national' rates)
Why are we so fskced on energy prices? Is there a fundamental difference, or just that other countries did things in a different way - more subsidy to reduce the apparent charged prices, rather than payments to households to help meet inflated prices, which then artificially holds down energy inflation?
We’re close to the middle of the pack across the EU, so it’s not clear to me why our energy inflation is so high relative to other EU nations.
It is an ffing sight colder in Germany in winter......
Because we are being ripped off . SHELL diesel is anywhere from 1.61 to 1.69. A disgrace. Our local coop is selling diesel at 1.57.9. Bp not much better
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
You could also rape your wife until recently, yet no-one thinks its wrong we got rid of that.
Ask yourself WHY we had Kings and Queens. Back in the day rulers emerged in societies, undoubtedly the strongest and most charismatic, to lead the small bands of humans. Some stone age societies do things very differently.
Once a model of the strong leader is established its in said leader(s) hands to stay in power with that system. The Anglo-Saxons didn't rely on the hereditary approach - the Witan would appoint the next King. This has changed through time.
Arguably, its time is over. Does a nation need a King? The nations of the world suggest not really. Do you have to have a figurehead? Possibly its useful. How do you arrive at said figurehead? There's the rub. Ex politicians (e,g, Blair, May, Brown and so on) have lots of baggage and many would be unhappy.
However there are in society elder statesmen and women who most could live with. David Attenborough, Mary Berry, Ken Bruce...
Controversy free folk, who people generally like.
Lets have one of those, not some prat who happened to fall out of the last queen at the right time.
In our society (others may be different) the people you would want - nice, uncontroversial, loyal, outgoing, kind - would not want the job and tend to support giving the job to someone who emerges from the lottery of a genetic election.
The people who would want the job would be just useless or horrible.
The overwhelming majority of free, democratic nations around the world are republics. Quite popular, I would say!
A majority, but not an overwhelming one.
Aristotle would have had no difficulty identifying a lot of self-proclaimed republics, as being monarchies in actuality.
Virtually all states, whether monarchical or republican, are ruled by pretty narrow classes of people in practice.
Republics without presidential term limits often morph into defacto monarchies.
What's in a name is not important.
It's where power resides, and what checks and balances exist on its use, that are the issues that really matter.
In particular, whether you even need an "individual" in such a role at all.
Get rid of the constitutional monarch and devolve the powers to Parliament, which is where they practically reside anyway.
I'm more than happy for us to continue to pay for the upkeep of heritage sites, if they give them to the nation. We can even pay for the army to have shiny hats outside them for the tourists.
If they retain private assets for themselves, they've got to pay for upkeep out of revenue.
And we can, I suppose, pay someone with the right DNA a reasonable rate to go and talk to foreign despots who are swayed by that kind of thing.
But it shouldn't be the basis of a system of governance.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
You could also rape your wife until recently, yet no-one thinks its wrong we got rid of that.
Ask yourself WHY we had Kings and Queens. Back in the day rulers emerged in societies, undoubtedly the strongest and most charismatic, to lead the small bands of humans. Some stone age societies do things very differently.
Once a model of the strong leader is established its in said leader(s) hands to stay in power with that system. The Anglo-Saxons didn't rely on the hereditary approach - the Witan would appoint the next King. This has changed through time.
Arguably, its time is over. Does a nation need a King? The nations of the world suggest not really. Do you have to have a figurehead? Possibly its useful. How do you arrive at said figurehead? There's the rub. Ex politicians (e,g, Blair, May, Brown and so on) have lots of baggage and many would be unhappy.
However there are in society elder statesmen and women who most could live with. David Attenborough, Mary Berry, Ken Bruce...
Controversy free folk, who people generally like.
Lets have one of those, not some prat who happened to fall out of the last queen at the right time.
In our society (others may be different) the people you would want - nice, uncontroversial, loyal, outgoing, kind - would not want the job and tend to support giving the job to someone who emerges from the lottery of a genetic election.
The people who would want the job would be just useless or horrible.
You could run a version of SPOTY. Ten candidates for president, BBC show, voting, the works. Would be great in the run up to Christmas.
We ought to have a lottery every 4 years for head of state. The winner gets a million quid a year for the 4 years, but has to be on call to do events, greet other heads of state, kiss babies and what have you. Monarchy. Sorted.
That is not monarchy, just random selection. Monarchy is normally hereditary
Normally, but not necessarily. There is nothing about monarchy which has to be hereditary.
It used to be whoever could get to Winchester first.
Or the fella with the biggest sword and the biggest army, plus a bit of luck in battle. Might be the way forward, put it on as a reality show.
EIIR is a tough, almost impossible, act to follow.
So, we had monarchs for a 1000 years before her. Good and bad
You could also rape your wife until recently, yet no-one thinks its wrong we got rid of that.
Ask yourself WHY we had Kings and Queens. Back in the day rulers emerged in societies, undoubtedly the strongest and most charismatic, to lead the small bands of humans. Some stone age societies do things very differently.
Once a model of the strong leader is established its in said leader(s) hands to stay in power with that system. The Anglo-Saxons didn't rely on the hereditary approach - the Witan would appoint the next King. This has changed through time.
Arguably, its time is over. Does a nation need a King? The nations of the world suggest not really. Do you have to have a figurehead? Possibly its useful. How do you arrive at said figurehead? There's the rub. Ex politicians (e,g, Blair, May, Brown and so on) have lots of baggage and many would be unhappy.
However there are in society elder statesmen and women who most could live with. David Attenborough, Mary Berry, Ken Bruce...
Controversy free folk, who people generally like.
Lets have one of those, not some prat who happened to fall out of the last queen at the right time.
In our society (others may be different) the people you would want - nice, uncontroversial, loyal, outgoing, kind - would not want the job and tend to support giving the job to someone who emerges from the lottery of a genetic election.
The people who would want the job would be just useless or horrible.
You could run a version of SPOTY. Ten candidates for president, BBC show, voting, the works. Would be great in the run up to Christmas.
So long as, as with SPOTY, you find 10 people who already have major achievements in life to their name. People who are life’s winners, the best in the world at what they’ve done before.
Comments
The poor quality data we have on all aspects of gender dysphoria treatment are in large part due to the lack of followup of those who do (and particularly those who do not) undergo various interventions.
*the studies showing this are scientifically crap, but the evidence for harms is also similarly (or even moreso) lacking.
This is what Bakhmut looked like before the war.
https://twitter.com/NOELreports/status/1648584318258749445
Charles is reforming and modernising the monarchy and William and Kate are much more popular with younger people anyway. Our JFK and Jackie.
They aren't popular with whinging leftwingers like you but then few are apart from your fellow socialists
The BBC is to suspend the licence fee as part of a one-off dispensation for the king’s coronation weekend.
The move will allow venues to screen the live coronation ceremony coverage on 6 May and the coronation concert on 7 May without needing to buy a TV licence.
I will be reserving an extra large 'boo hiss' for TSE if I see him!!
The monarchy is wrapped up in the idea of the nation state and even national identity: a nebulous and almost mystical function as opposed to the utilitarian purpose of most other state institutions.
A hereditary head of state is arbitrary, based on history and accident. But, then, so is any nation state.
Don't think it will improve the functioning of politics and the state. The French removed their monarch completely, and it was a big mistake in the long term (as President Macron has, sort of, acknowledged). They change their constitution fundamentally every 60 years or so, and now have the most monarchical form of government in the democratic world. The French constitution was even cited as a model by Erdogan in his attempts to amass more power in Turkey.
If you must, abolish the hereditary principle, but at least retain the title of king. Kings of Poland and Holy Roman Emperors were elected, after all (if only by very small electorates back then). But keep the title and as much of the trappings as you can.
My point was that many of those saying "clinical trials" are basically handwaving the problem away.
There is also a deep - and in many cases justified - distrust of the medical profession on the part of transgender individuals. I know that the treatment my son has encountered has ranged from sympathetic, to downright unprofessional and undisguised hostility.
The monarchy survives in this country because nobody really cares enough to change it. It is rooted in deep seated apathy among most of the population and cosy patriotic support among a significant minority. There’s no groundswell of desire for a different system.
All for themselves, after all
https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1648621405125349381
As the former are 89% of the country's population, my guess is that we will be a monarchy for the foreseesable future.
But in terms of the popularity of constitutional monarchies or parliamentary republics (the question raised by algakirk):
https://www.stern.de/politik/monarchie-umfrage--acht-prozent-der-deutschen-wuenschen-sich-einen-koenig-33300074.html
89% of Germans oppose a constitutional monarchy and 8% are in favour
Which I think makes the status quo in Germany a bit more popular than the status quo in the UK.
Clearly most people in Germany aren't that bothered about having a non-entity as head of state. And most people in both countries would keep things as they are in terms of head of state. Which is probably fairly rational of most people, even though I don't like the idea of institionalised hereditary privilege.
twin b has exams so didn't apply to attend, twin a did and there were more places available than are attending (probably because most of the Scouts who qualified are students and in early May students have exams to worry about.
Scottish ministers are not keen we be aware that the UK government set out its reasoning in a detailed 13-page document. The Scottish government’s written parliamentary answer published last week consisted of 392 words.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/daa056ca-de31-11ed-9cc2-0f7e26ed83eb?shareToken=243bc22ffdd206b269eb2f40d4276a19
Aristotle would have had no difficulty identifying a lot of self-proclaimed republics, as being monarchies in actuality.
Virtually all states, whether monarchical or republican, are ruled by pretty narrow classes of people in practice.
We're still off mountain biking anyway!
Given one of their Presidents was one Adolf Hitler within the last 100 years we don't need lectures from them on our constitutional monarchy!!!
(that was a message from the Committee to Restore the Republic of 1649)
Monarchy. Sorted.
Capt Blackadder: So your father's German, you're half German, and you married a German!
Must be in the genes..
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
Leavers are morons.
It's where power resides, and what checks and balances exist on its use, that are the issues that really matter.
I'm just trying to answer the question of whether monarchies or republics are more popular. So far as I can tell, the status quo is the most popular option in most European democracies - but with a tendency for monarchies to be less popular in monarchies than republics are in republics.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/practical-ideas-for-parents-of-gender-questioning-teenagers/
Long may he live.
One of the good things I've heard about the Tavistock is that it provided a very welcoming and non-judgemental environment for young people. There are, of course, other concerns over how balanced the approach was.
As with many things, it comes down in part to a lack of funding/investment. CAMHS are chronically underfunded and while being transgender is certainly not a mental health issue, a proper rounded assessment is vital, I think. There needs to be - as far as possible - a good understanding of whether gender is really the core issue for an individual or whether there are other things that should be addressed either instead or as well. I think! But even on this there isn't really clear evidence - we don't know whether recent apparent increases are pre-existing need now being better recognised or really new thing that may be, in part, mixed up with other things.
I'm sorry to hear about your son's mixed experiences. One thing is for sure, the current system (by which I mean healthcare system in general, much more than just the Tavistock) wasn't working.
ETA: And I think my earlier comment about Sweden was wrong, or at least misleading. I haven't read their docs closely, but I believe the position is to continue to offer treatment as part of research, rather than requiring it to be part of a trial. I was very unclear in what I wrote.
Just turn up in Wales !!!!!!!
Labour plans to give young asylum-seekers in Wales £1,600 a month and taxpayers' cash to fight deportation
Labour ministers in Wales have announced plans that could see young asylum seekers in the country receive £1,600 a month and taxpayers' cash for legal aid to fight deportation.
The plan, which has been formally sent to Tory Justice Minister Lord Bellamy, is still in the development stage and would need Whitehall approval to go ahead.
Three Welsh Labour ministers - Jane Hutt, Julie Morgan and Mick Antoniw - are signatories of the letter, which demands that all migrants aged 18 and over should get universal basic income without being deprived of legal aid.
The UK Government spends around £6million a day accommodating migrants across the country in hotels, former military bases and barges.
Under the Welsh plan, the Government would provide migrants with both a wage and their lawyers' fees to stop them being deported, reports The Sun.
Note that the British Empire re-used the term "Commonwealth" in 1931 (or 1926 if you prefer).
If you read the Cass Review you will see that there was a large number of failings at the Tavistock for me the most damning of which was that issues other than those around gender potentially contributing to mental health and anxiety were ignored.
By GDP they spent 7.4% vs our 3.4% : https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/energy-price-support-schemes/
We’re close to the middle of the pack across the EU, so it’s not clear to me why our energy inflation is so high relative to other EU nations.
Plus the insulation of our housing stock is pretty shoddy.
Ask yourself WHY we had Kings and Queens. Back in the day rulers emerged in societies, undoubtedly the strongest and most charismatic, to lead the small bands of humans. Some stone age societies do things very differently.
Once a model of the strong leader is established its in said leader(s) hands to stay in power with that system. The Anglo-Saxons didn't rely on the hereditary approach - the Witan would appoint the next King. This has changed through time.
Arguably, its time is over. Does a nation need a King? The nations of the world suggest not really. Do you have to have a figurehead? Possibly its useful. How do you arrive at said figurehead? There's the rub. Ex politicians (e,g, Blair, May, Brown and so on) have lots of baggage and many would be unhappy.
However there are in society elder statesmen and women who most could live with. David Attenborough, Mary Berry, Ken Bruce...
Controversy free folk, who people generally like.
Lets have one of those, not some prat who happened to fall out of the last queen at the right time.
But isn't it maybe true that conservatives have larger families in the US? They'd still have to make sure the offspring don't think for themselves though.
(* I think)
The people who would want the job would be just useless or horrible.
Get rid of the constitutional monarch and devolve the powers to Parliament, which is where they practically reside anyway.
I'm more than happy for us to continue to pay for the upkeep of heritage sites, if they give them to the nation. We can even pay for the army to have shiny hats outside them for the tourists.
If they retain private assets for themselves, they've got to pay for upkeep out of revenue.
And we can, I suppose, pay someone with the right DNA a reasonable rate to go and talk to foreign despots who are swayed by that kind of thing.
But it shouldn't be the basis of a system of governance.
Starmer busy rewriting his PMQ's
Might be the way forward, put it on as a reality show.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64856842
Fragments said to be from the cross of Jesus? I though Thomas Cromwell rounded them all up in the 1530's.
Believe that these fragments are from the True Cross? I have a bridge to sell.
Illustrates the preposterous nonsense around the coronation.