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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
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.
I thought it was watery tarts distributing cutlery?
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.
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.
Well that would certainly be interesting the moment the lottery fell on a rab c. nesbitt alike
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
Is that a local idiom? Never heard of it and don't know what it means!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
I'd neither heard that idiom, nor (obviously, given the first) made any connection with Bellingcat - wikipedia tells me that is indeed the source of the Bellingcat name,
On the substantive point, I think you're largely right. The answer, if there is one, is 'the cat'. The monarchy will continue, I think, through apathy until someone truly awful - or, at least, unpopular - takes (or is about to take) the role. At that point, if it ever arrives, the cat will probably have nicked the bells from the mice and belled itself.
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.
Nah, to be fair it has to be a lottery. The winner gets no power, just a couple of million quid, a bit of travel, a few years in Buckingham Palace and then they're off. Convicted felons, anyone called Blair, Johnson or Truss, anyone who's ever been on a reality show or hosted a reality show is banned, but anyone else gets a chance.
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.
Well that would certainly be interesting the moment the lottery fell on a rab c. nesbitt alike
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.
I can see the benefit of having someone outside politics able to say to the PM "are you sure that's wise?" Liz Truss, in particular, could have done with such a person but with HMK being as new in the job as she was, she didn't have it.
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.
No it doesn't. You just want to be negative about it and Christianity. Finebut dont chuck.. a bucketful of negativity over everyone else in the process.
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.
Can't be on BBC, or broadcast live on any recognised broadcast channel, as non licences payers couldn't watch it.
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.
No it doesn't. You just want to be negative about it and Christianity. Finebut dont chuck.. a bucketful of negativity over everyone else in the process.
But he is right, aren't the vast majority of relics completely fake?
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.
No it doesn't. You just want to be negative about it and Christianity. Finebut dont chuck.. a bucketful of negativity over everyone else in the process.
I think the take up of street parties illustrates the state of the nation re negativity.
I lamented the passing of the Queen, but she ought to have been the last.
I watched the pageantry of the funeral, and it was impressive. I'll no doubt catch some of the coronation too.
But fragments of the true cross? Come on. In medieval times they were the tourist attraction de jour, and almost certainly utterly fake from the start.
I bet you could make a pretty awesome monarch with animatronics and a language model.
Given the popularity of QE2, perhaps we should just have employed a series of actors to play her for all time, as in The Crown. Afterall, Claire Foy should be good for 40-50 years with decent healthcare
Hurrah, good news for savers, tough for mortgage holders.
The Bank of England is on course to raise interest rates again next month, according to economists and investors, after inflation failed to come down as much as expected in March.
Official data today showed that annual consumer price inflation fell to 10.1 per cent last month, higher than the the 9.9 per cent forecast by economists, as food prices continued to surge.
The inflation reading shows that for the second consecutive month price pressures have proven more stubborn than expected, posing a headache for rate-setters at the Bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) who have forecast a sharp drop in inflation this year.
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.
No it doesn't. You just want to be negative about it and Christianity. Finebut dont chuck.. a bucketful of negativity over everyone else in the process.
I think the take up of street parties illustrates the state of the nation re negativity.
I lamented the passing of the Queen, but she ought to have been the last.
I watched the pageantry of the funeral, and it was impressive. I'll no doubt catch some of the coronation too.
But fragments of the true cross? Come on. In medieval times they were the tourist attraction de jour, and almost certainly utterly fake from the start.
It’s actually about rapprochement with Rome. The CoE explicitly removed such things. Along with most of saints cults stuff.
Accepting the gift from the Pope is a symbolic gesture of friendship.
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.
No it doesn't. You just want to be negative about it and Christianity. Finebut dont chuck.. a bucketful of negativity over everyone else in the process.
But he is right, aren't the vast majority of relics completely fake?
How do you know. The Hitler Diaries were I'll grant you that.
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.
I can see the benefit of having someone outside politics able to say to the PM "are you sure that's wise?" Liz Truss, in particular, could have done with such a person but with HMK being as new in the job as she was, she didn't have it.
Yes I am sure Truss, the republican who sacked and marginalised the leading civil servants who tried to offer such advice, would have changed tack and corrected her course if only it had come from a strong monarch.
This is Fake News. Rishi said he was halving inflation this year. Indeed he, other ministers and indeed PB Tories have all proclaimed that inflation is indeed falling and falling fast.
So this so-called data must be wrong. @felix flew in for the weekend, saw people having a whizzo jolly time, and then flew away again. That evidence is far more convincing that woke remoaner lies such as this "data".
Always bad luck when you set an unambitious target based on nothing more than an assumption that what has gone up must come down a bit and even that doesn't work. No doubt the raging Sunak apologists will find some way to spin this.
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
Is that a local idiom? Never heard of it and don't know what it means!
Look up belling the cat on the interweb thingy.
The issue here is simple. Let us say most people would like to abolish the monarchy, though they care more about other things like pensions and NHS. and let us say 30% of people want to keep the monarchy.
No party who wants to be elected will risk the votes of the 30% being lost for the sake of a majority who may not feel it matters hugely.
So no serious party will ever put abolition of monarchy/referendum thereon into a manifesto.
So, belling the cat, which mouse (political party) will risk being eaten by the cat (losing an election) by taking a good and necessary but personally dangerous step to achieve their end.
And so, we can be certain that short of revolution or unknowable zeitgeist shift, the monarchy remains.
📢 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?
Japan imports much of its energy. I think they spent around 4% of GDP on energy subsidies last year.
G7 inflation: UK 🇬🇧 10.1% France 🇫🇷 6.6% Germany 🇩🇪 7.8% US 🇺🇸 5.3% Italy 🇮🇹 8.1% Canada 🇨🇦 4.3% Japan 🇯🇵 3.3%
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.
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!!!
Why's the food inflation so sticky and why couldn't the collective eggheads whose job it is to predict this stuff forsee that it would be ?
I note fertiliser peaked globally in April 2022.
Is there profiteering going on by the supermarkets and manufacturers over and above their input inflation ? Lag ?
Why wasn't the stickiness forecast ?
It appears to just be very laggy, with this year’s food being produced with last year’s expensive fertiliser, transport costs still high, and a Ukraine war effect on global food commodity markets.
On the housing inflation, ceteris paribus - shouldn't that head UP with increasing interest rates ? (OO or landlord mortgage more expensive due to interest rate rise implies a rent or notional rent increase)
On topic, the Royal Family's future is totally secure, because while no-one much cares for Charles (and certainly not for Camila), he won't be around for ever. And most people quite like William, and everyone loves Kate.
So far the generation after that is looking promising in media terms, as well.
In general, the public seem to be prepared to give royals their support unless and until they do something to deserve losing it (Andrew, Harry etc). It seems Charles just hasn't been fully forgiven for Diana, but he is still broadly tolerated, which is just fine for (at most) the next few decades.
Hurrah, good news for savers, tough for mortgage holders.
The Bank of England is on course to raise interest rates again next month, according to economists and investors, after inflation failed to come down as much as expected in March.
Official data today showed that annual consumer price inflation fell to 10.1 per cent last month, higher than the the 9.9 per cent forecast by economists, as food prices continued to surge.
The inflation reading shows that for the second consecutive month price pressures have proven more stubborn than expected, posing a headache for rate-setters at the Bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) who have forecast a sharp drop in inflation this year.
As always, it doesn't work like that (as well you know).
Inflation is eroding the value of the capital, and savings interest rates don't seem to be going up with the base rates. So it tends to be all round bad for savers.
On the other side of the equation, the value of debt is also eroding faster, but the short term interest payments are higher, so it is short term bad and long term good for for mortgage holders.
📢 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?
Japan imports much of its energy. I think they spent around 4% of GDP on energy subsidies last year.
G7 inflation: UK 🇬🇧 10.1% France 🇫🇷 6.6% Germany 🇩🇪 7.8% US 🇺🇸 5.3% Italy 🇮🇹 8.1% Canada 🇨🇦 4.3% Japan 🇯🇵 3.3%
They also took advantage of the Ukraine war to buy cut price Russian LNG cargos.
Why's the food inflation so sticky and why couldn't the collective eggheads whose job it is to predict this stuff forsee that it would be ?
I note fertiliser peaked globally in April 2022.
Is there profiteering going on by the supermarkets and manufacturers over and above their input inflation ? Lag ?
Why wasn't the stickiness forecast ?
It appears to just be very laggy, with this year’s food being produced with last year’s expensive fertiliser, transport costs still high, and a Ukraine war effect on global food commodity markets.
Hurrah, good news for savers, tough for mortgage holders.
The Bank of England is on course to raise interest rates again next month, according to economists and investors, after inflation failed to come down as much as expected in March.
Official data today showed that annual consumer price inflation fell to 10.1 per cent last month, higher than the the 9.9 per cent forecast by economists, as food prices continued to surge.
The inflation reading shows that for the second consecutive month price pressures have proven more stubborn than expected, posing a headache for rate-setters at the Bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) who have forecast a sharp drop in inflation this year.
As always, it doesn't work like that (as well you know).
Inflation is eroding the value of the capital, and savings interest rates don't seem to be going up with the base rates. So it tends to be all round bad for savers.
On the other side of the equation, the value of debt is also eroding faster, but the short term interest payments are higher, so it is short term bad and long term good for for mortgage holders.
Cannot see the polls tightening any further if mortgages go up.
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
Is that a local idiom? Never heard of it and don't know what it means!
Look up belling the cat on the interweb thingy.
The issue here is simple. Let us say most people would like to abolish the monarchy, though they care more about other things like pensions and NHS. and let us say 30% of people want to keep the monarchy.
No party who wants to be elected will risk the votes of the 30% being lost for the sake of a majority who may not feel it matters hugely.
So no serious party will ever put abolition of monarchy/referendum thereon into a manifesto.
So, belling the cat, which mouse (political party) will risk being eaten by the cat (losing an election) by taking a good and necessary but personally dangerous step to achieve their end.
And so, we can be certain that short of revolution or unknowable zeitgeist shift, the monarchy remains.
Indeed. Ironically the best chance republicans had for a generation came in 2019 if they had got the republican Corbyn elected and now Charles is King and less popular than his mother or son.
However Corbyn was beaten and now both Starmer and Sunak as well as Davey back the monarchy so it is a non issue.
Yousaf doesn't but his party is now in chaos and Forbes, who might replace him, is much more pro 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
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
I'd neither heard that idiom, nor (obviously, given the first) made any connection with Bellingcat - wikipedia tells me that is indeed the source of the Bellingcat name,
On the substantive point, I think you're largely right. The answer, if there is one, is 'the cat'. The monarchy will continue, I think, through apathy until someone truly awful - or, at least, unpopular - takes (or is about to take) the role. At that point, if it ever arrives, the cat will probably have nicked the bells from the mice and belled itself.
If someone awful comes along there are ways and means. Ask Richard II, Edward II, Henry VI, Charles I, James II/VII, Richard III, and a lesser case, Edward VIII.
BTW, essay question: Did King Harald really have a better claim to the English throne than William I?
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Liz Truss, started badly, ended in a total disaster.
No, most sensible people (ie not Leon) already knew Truss was an incompetent fanatic whose rule would be an utter disaster. She was slightly worse than expected but not much.
Point of order. When Truss did that first debate I said “my god she’s mad and terrible” or words to that effect. I can go and find them if you really insist. I maintained that negativity for the whole time until for some drunken reason, one night, I said “she might surprise on the upside” along with equally positive nonsense. I think I was trying to cheer myself up
I am happy to have my “upside” gibberish thrown at me with vigour. But it is factually wrong to say I thought she was good from the get go. I really really didn’t
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!!!
There's another list of three: "ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer".
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
Is that a local idiom? Never heard of it and don't know what it means!
Look up belling the cat on the interweb thingy.
The issue here is simple. Let us say most people would like to abolish the monarchy, though they care more about other things like pensions and NHS. and let us say 30% of people want to keep the monarchy.
No party who wants to be elected will risk the votes of the 30% being lost for the sake of a majority who may not feel it matters hugely.
Hurrah, good news for savers, tough for mortgage holders.
The Bank of England is on course to raise interest rates again next month, according to economists and investors, after inflation failed to come down as much as expected in March.
Official data today showed that annual consumer price inflation fell to 10.1 per cent last month, higher than the the 9.9 per cent forecast by economists, as food prices continued to surge.
The inflation reading shows that for the second consecutive month price pressures have proven more stubborn than expected, posing a headache for rate-setters at the Bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) who have forecast a sharp drop in inflation this year.
As always, it doesn't work like that (as well you know).
Inflation is eroding the value of the capital, and savings interest rates don't seem to be going up with the base rates. So it tends to be all round bad for savers.
On the other side of the equation, the value of debt is also eroding faster, but the short term interest payments are higher, so it is short term bad and long term good for for mortgage holders.
Cannot see the polls tightening any further if mortgages go up.
No - I agree. Basically, it is lose-lose for the government. No-one feels better.
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Liz Truss, started badly, ended in a total disaster.
No, most sensible people (ie not Leon) already knew Truss was an incompetent fanatic whose rule would be an utter disaster. She was slightly worse than expected but not much.
Point of order. When Truss did that first debate I said “my god she’s mad and terrible” or words to that effect. I can go and find them if you really insist. I maintained that negativity for the whole time until for some drunken reason, one night, I said “she might surprise on the upside” along with equally positive nonsense. I think I was trying to cheer myself up ...
Or indulging in having it both ways, a cynic might suggest.
Rather than tax my mind with weighty matters of constitution, the burning question for me is: What shall I bring to the local street party? Residents of odd-numbered houses (which includes me) are requested to bring savoury items to share, evens to bring sweet. The Coronation Quiche looks too much of a faff so it will have to be shop bought. Mini pork pies, sausage rolls, scotch eggs? Who is the culinary expert on this board?
As a happy republican I plan to celebrate the extra public holidays in May with a trip to Majorca.
Incidentally any monarchists who wish for a more frequent display of royal pride and pageantry I would heartily recommend a visit to Amsterdam on Kingsday for it's annual feast of orange celebrations.
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Liz Truss, started badly, ended in a total disaster.
No, most sensible people (ie not Leon) already knew Truss was an incompetent fanatic whose rule would be an utter disaster. She was slightly worse than expected but not much.
Point of order. When Truss did that first debate I said “my god she’s mad and terrible” or words to that effect. I can go and find them if you really insist. I maintained that negativity for the whole time until for some drunken reason, one night, I said “she might surprise on the upside” along with equally positive nonsense. I think I was trying to cheer myself up ...
Or indulging in having it both ways, a cynic might suggest.
Leon's suggestion that she might surprise on the upside was not implausible, given that expectations were so low. Indeed, the fact that she surprised on the downside is remarkable, given how little space there was on the downside.
Not sure I'm a 'fan' but what about the fall in Sterling between August and November? That's an optimistic response as in theory that ought to go away in the coming months.
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..
George VI and the King of Sweden were the only non Fascist or Communist leaders in Europe by mid WW2. Switzerland was neutral but doesn't really have a President only first amongst equals of the Confederation and Ireland was also neutral but President De Valera signed the condolence book for Hitler in May 1945 at the German embassy
Rather than tax my mind with weighty matters of constitution, the burning question for me is: What shall I bring to the local street party? Residents of odd-numbered houses (which includes me) are requested to bring savoury items to share, evens to bring sweet. The Coronation Quiche looks too much of a faff so it will have to be shop bought. Mini pork pies, sausage rolls, scotch eggs? Who is the culinary expert on this board?
Justice Clarence Thomas intends to amend his financial disclosure forms to reflect a 2014 real estate deal he made with a GOP megadonor -- an acknowledgment that the transaction should have been disclosed almost a decade ago, a source close to Thomas said. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1648646409376153601
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
If it happens it will be because of some kind of scandal leading to a sudden change. Apathy isn't enough to make it worthwhile to put time and effort in, though makes it more vulnerable to a shock.
Rather than tax my mind with weighty matters of constitution, the burning question for me is: What shall I bring to the local street party? Residents of odd-numbered houses (which includes me) are requested to bring savoury items to share, evens to bring sweet. The Coronation Quiche looks too much of a faff so it will have to be shop bought. Mini pork pies, sausage rolls, scotch eggs? Who is the culinary expert on this board?
Mix all of them and make (or buy) a picnic pie (it's the pork pie with the hardboiled egg in it). Delicious with some good quality picallilli.
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
I'd neither heard that idiom, nor (obviously, given the first) made any connection with Bellingcat - wikipedia tells me that is indeed the source of the Bellingcat name,
On the substantive point, I think you're largely right. The answer, if there is one, is 'the cat'. The monarchy will continue, I think, through apathy until someone truly awful - or, at least, unpopular - takes (or is about to take) the role. At that point, if it ever arrives, the cat will probably have nicked the bells from the mice and belled itself.
If someone awful comes along there are ways and means. Ask Richard II, Edward II, Henry VI, Charles I, James II/VII, Richard III, and a lesser case, Edward VIII.
BTW, essay question: Did King Harald really have a better claim to the English throne than William I?
Probably not.
If someone awful comes along there are indeed ways and means, but there's no guarantee thise in power would always be smart enough to take them. The Edward II solution is frowned upon outside the Russian Empire these days.
One of the last remaining veterans of D-Day has died aged 100 after what his family said were “some of the happiest years of his life”, having at last opened up about the war.
Joe Cattini, from Fairoaks in Hampshire, spoke to The Times in 2019 during the 75th anniversary of the Normandy invasion about being grabbed by a sergeant major at Southampton docks and made to join one of the first waves of the assault on Gold beach.
Sarah Burr, Cattini’s granddaughter, said her “beloved grandad” died on Tuesday evening, adding in a statement online: “A life so well lived. One of the last D-Day veterans left. We are so proud of him and loved him so much.
“The past nine years since D-Day 70 were some of the happiest of his life. From (like most of his generation) never having really talked about his war experiences to sharing them with so many others in recent years was so important to him.”
The Spirit of Normandy Trust estimates there are only about half a dozen British veterans left who fought on June 6, 1944, and about 25 veterans of the entire Normandy campaign, which raged on against fierce opposition until August 25.
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.
No party who wants to form a government will put any such thought into a manifesto. It will not happen short of revolution. We have had a revolution, in 1688, in which the line of succession was altered but not so as to destroy the ancestry. A similar thing happened with Edward VIII. No fresh revolution is required.
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
Is that a local idiom? Never heard of it and don't know what it means!
Look up belling the cat on the interweb thingy.
The issue here is simple. Let us say most people would like to abolish the monarchy, though they care more about other things like pensions and NHS. and let us say 30% of people want to keep the monarchy.
No party who wants to be elected will risk the votes of the 30% being lost for the sake of a majority who may not feel it matters hugely.
Thanks for the tip about "Belling the Cat". I've not only learnt a fable that I haad not heard of before, but it has also taught me the word "Aesopic", as in "Belling the Cat is not an Aesopic fable".
Rather than tax my mind with weighty matters of constitution, the burning question for me is: What shall I bring to the local street party? Residents of odd-numbered houses (which includes me) are requested to bring savoury items to share, evens to bring sweet. The Coronation Quiche looks too much of a faff so it will have to be shop bought. Mini pork pies, sausage rolls, scotch eggs? Who is the culinary expert on this board?
Why's the food inflation so sticky and why couldn't the collective eggheads whose job it is to predict this stuff forsee that it would be ?
I note fertiliser peaked globally in April 2022.
Is there profiteering going on by the supermarkets and manufacturers over and above their input inflation ? Lag ?
Why wasn't the stickiness forecast ?
There certainly will be some profiteering by manufacturers going on and also their suppliers too.
One of our main markets is consumables for manufacture in the food and beverage industry. Bread producers, biscuit producers, sweets producers etc etc. We have been raising prices previously to maintain margins.
The last couple of times it has been about enhancing margins and this is partly to get them back to what our board thinks is a reasonable level following years of cost reduction pressures.
Er.... no, I said call his bluff. There was an agreement to get Ukrainian grain out of the Black Sea. It is in the world's interests. There should be a way to get all the grain out.
As someone with military knowledge you must know how easy it would be for Nato to destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet. The fear of course is nuclear escalation. If you had your way we'd just be continually inviting nuclear blackmail because we always have to be the ones to deescalate.
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Liz Truss, started badly, ended in a total disaster.
No, most sensible people (ie not Leon) already knew Truss was an incompetent fanatic whose rule would be an utter disaster. She was slightly worse than expected but not much.
Point of order. When Truss did that first debate I said “my god she’s mad and terrible” or words to that effect. I can go and find them if you really insist. I maintained that negativity for the whole time until for some drunken reason, one night, I said “she might surprise on the upside” along with equally positive nonsense. I think I was trying to cheer myself up
I am happy to have my “upside” gibberish thrown at me with vigour. But it is factually wrong to say I thought she was good from the get go. I really really didn’t
I was utterly appalled with Truss's initial candidature, and thought she'd be horrendous. I cringed at the awkwardness/communication issues. I was a strong supporter (as much as anyone without a vote) of PM.
She then surprised me massively on the upside by being genuine, honest, and trying her best to get important stuff done. Nick Palmer has said something similar about respecting her for her genuine political principles. She tells the same story to everyone whether she's talking to the US Foreign Sec, being interviewed at a hustings, or having a chat with our own Barty Bobbins (as he reported here) etc. That's almost unique in a modern politician. I really think her one killer mistake (amongst several other smaller ones) was investing WAY too much political and emotional trust in Kwasi. He just wasn't the reliable partner needed.
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.
I can see the benefit of having someone outside politics able to say to the PM "are you sure that's wise?" Liz Truss, in particular, could have done with such a person but with HMK being as new in the job as she was, she didn't have it.
That is not the role of the Monarch, and QE II never intervened to stop a prime minister from anouncing a policy.
Academics have begun a three-year government-funded study into the Post Office scandal and the role that the legal profession may have played.
Researchers from two universities say they want to examine and learn from the conduct of lawyers in the Horizon IT affair which led to hundreds of postmasters being wrongly accused of fraud and theft.
The project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, is led by Professor Richard Moorhead and Professor Rebecca Helm from the University of Exeter and Dr Karen Nokes from UCL. Together they aim to understand how the scandal was allowed to develop over 20 years and what implications it has for professional ethics and the in-house legal sector.
Moorhead said: ‘The research will enable us to deepen our engagement with the victims affected by the scandal; ensure that the right lessons are learned about what went wrong and why; and work on practical strategies to reduce the chances of such terrible events happening again.’
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.
No it doesn't. You just want to be negative about it and Christianity. Finebut dont chuck.. a bucketful of negativity over everyone else in the process.
But he is right, aren't the vast majority of relics completely fake?
How do you know. The Hitler Diaries were I'll grant you that.
Plausibility and volume is why we can be confident most relics are fake, never mind other reasons. Many just appeared from nowhere, most conveniently, or several people claim to have the same thing so at best one is true, and the cross one itd be impossible to have so many.
One of the last remaining veterans of D-Day has died aged 100 after what his family said were “some of the happiest years of his life”, having at last opened up about the war.
Joe Cattini, from Fairoaks in Hampshire, spoke to The Times in 2019 during the 75th anniversary of the Normandy invasion about being grabbed by a sergeant major at Southampton docks and made to join one of the first waves of the assault on Gold beach.
Sarah Burr, Cattini’s granddaughter, said her “beloved grandad” died on Tuesday evening, adding in a statement online: “A life so well lived. One of the last D-Day veterans left. We are so proud of him and loved him so much.
“The past nine years since D-Day 70 were some of the happiest of his life. From (like most of his generation) never having really talked about his war experiences to sharing them with so many others in recent years was so important to him.”
The Spirit of Normandy Trust estimates there are only about half a dozen British veterans left who fought on June 6, 1944, and about 25 veterans of the entire Normandy campaign, which raged on against fierce opposition until August 25.
Er.... no, I said call his bluff. There was an agreement to get Ukrainian grain out of the Black Sea. It is in the world's interests. There should be a way to get all the grain out.
As someone with military knowledge you must know how easy it would be for Nato to destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet. The fear of course is nuclear escalation. If you had your way we'd just be continually inviting nuclear blackmail because we always have to be the ones to deescalate.
He is a Putin apologist. The only person on here (that I am aware of) who unapologetically refers to Putin's murderous war of aggression as "the SMO".
Er.... no, I said call his bluff. There was an agreement to get Ukrainian grain out of the Black Sea. It is in the world's interests. There should be a way to get all the grain out.
As someone with military knowledge you must know how easy it would be for Nato to destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet. The fear of course is nuclear escalation. If you had your way we'd just be continually inviting nuclear blackmail because we always have to be the ones to deescalate.
He is a Putin apologist. The only person on here (that I am aware of) who unapologetically refers to Putin's murderous war of aggression as "the SMO".
Er.... no, I said call his bluff. There was an agreement to get Ukrainian grain out of the Black Sea. It is in the world's interests. There should be a way to get all the grain out.
As someone with military knowledge you must know how easy it would be for Nato to destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet. The fear of course is nuclear escalation. If you had your way we'd just be continually inviting nuclear blackmail because we always have to be the ones to deescalate.
He is a Putin apologist. The only person on here (that I am aware of) who unapologetically refers to Putin's murderous war of aggression as "the SMO".
The irony of an anti-establishment figure freely quoting government propaganda. I wonder if he understands how ridiculous he looks?
DeSantis looks to be on the slide. Beginning to look as though the GOP might be faced with a choice between an ex President facing multiple criminal prosecutions, and a rank outsider (which might be their best shot).
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.
I can see the benefit of having someone outside politics able to say to the PM "are you sure that's wise?" Liz Truss, in particular, could have done with such a person but with HMK being as new in the job as she was, she didn't have it.
That is not the role of the Monarch, and QE II never intervened to stop a prime minister from anouncing a policy.
There is a difference I think between intervening to stop a prime minister from doing something, and a prime minister saying 'I'm thinking about X' and the monarch replying 'have you thought about consequence Y'. Clearly the PM can continue with X, but just occasionally it might cause the PM to stop and ask for more information / amend things slightly.
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..
George VI and the King of Sweden were the only non Fascist or Communist leaders in Europe by mid WW2. Switzerland was neutral but doesn't really have a President only first amongst equals of the Confederation and Ireland was also neutral but President De Valera signed the condolence book for Hitler in May 1945 at the German embassy
A bit rich for a Scottish Nationalist to make any reference to the Nazi and fascist movements.
And then there is the obvious fact that many of them, including a number of them on here, that are clearly fascist, or at least highly nationalistically prejudiced in their outlook.
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Liz Truss, started badly, ended in a total disaster.
No, most sensible people (ie not Leon) already knew Truss was an incompetent fanatic whose rule would be an utter disaster. She was slightly worse than expected but not much.
Point of order. When Truss did that first debate I said “my god she’s mad and terrible” or words to that effect. I can go and find them if you really insist. I maintained that negativity for the whole time until for some drunken reason, one night, I said “she might surprise on the upside” along with equally positive nonsense. I think I was trying to cheer myself up ...
Or indulging in having it both ways, a cynic might suggest.
Truss genuinely did have a purple patch during the leadership campaign where she seemed to outclass Sunak but it went to her head.
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Liz Truss, started badly, ended in a total disaster.
No, most sensible people (ie not Leon) already knew Truss was an incompetent fanatic whose rule would be an utter disaster. She was slightly worse than expected but not much.
Point of order. When Truss did that first debate I said “my god she’s mad and terrible” or words to that effect. I can go and find them if you really insist. I maintained that negativity for the whole time until for some drunken reason, one night, I said “she might surprise on the upside” along with equally positive nonsense. I think I was trying to cheer myself up
I am happy to have my “upside” gibberish thrown at me with vigour. But it is factually wrong to say I thought she was good from the get go. I really really didn’t
Luckily you have never been known to take anyone else's comments out of context and continually throw them back at them... On an entirely different subject, I had a very comfortable time driving in Crete the other week.
Academics have begun a three-year government-funded study into the Post Office scandal and the role that the legal profession may have played.
Researchers from two universities say they want to examine and learn from the conduct of lawyers in the Horizon IT affair which led to hundreds of postmasters being wrongly accused of fraud and theft.
The project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, is led by Professor Richard Moorhead and Professor Rebecca Helm from the University of Exeter and Dr Karen Nokes from UCL. Together they aim to understand how the scandal was allowed to develop over 20 years and what implications it has for professional ethics and the in-house legal sector.
Moorhead said: ‘The research will enable us to deepen our engagement with the victims affected by the scandal; ensure that the right lessons are learned about what went wrong and why; and work on practical strategies to reduce the chances of such terrible events happening again.’
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Liz Truss, started badly, ended in a total disaster.
No, most sensible people (ie not Leon) already knew Truss was an incompetent fanatic whose rule would be an utter disaster. She was slightly worse than expected but not much.
Point of order. When Truss did that first debate I said “my god she’s mad and terrible” or words to that effect. I can go and find them if you really insist. I maintained that negativity for the whole time until for some drunken reason, one night, I said “she might surprise on the upside” along with equally positive nonsense. I think I was trying to cheer myself up ...
Or indulging in having it both ways, a cynic might suggest.
Truss genuinely did have a purple patch during the leadership campaign where she seemed to outclass Sunak but it went to her head.
She said we could all be rich through unfunded tax cuts and did not need to support household energy bills which the Tory members lapped up, then complained of being bullied when Sunak said this was not possible. She won from promising undeliverable cash to a select group of old, rich Tory members, that was her purple patch.
Wow. Has a political reputation ever soured so much and so fast before this? I'm struggling to think of a precedent.
Liz Truss, started badly, ended in a total disaster.
No, most sensible people (ie not Leon) already knew Truss was an incompetent fanatic whose rule would be an utter disaster. She was slightly worse than expected but not much.
Point of order. When Truss did that first debate I said “my god she’s mad and terrible” or words to that effect. I can go and find them if you really insist. I maintained that negativity for the whole time until for some drunken reason, one night, I said “she might surprise on the upside” along with equally positive nonsense. I think I was trying to cheer myself up
I am happy to have my “upside” gibberish thrown at me with vigour. But it is factually wrong to say I thought she was good from the get go. I really really didn’t
Luckily you have never been known to take anyone else's comments out of context and continually throw them back at them... On an entirely different subject, I had a very comfortable time driving in Crete the other week.
Well it needs little explanation but in this instance because they have imposed upon the British travelling public extra checks and administrative burden and we are now, I note, limited to bringing back 18 litres of still wine into the country.
One of the last remaining veterans of D-Day has died aged 100 after what his family said were “some of the happiest years of his life”, having at last opened up about the war.
Joe Cattini, from Fairoaks in Hampshire, spoke to The Times in 2019 during the 75th anniversary of the Normandy invasion about being grabbed by a sergeant major at Southampton docks and made to join one of the first waves of the assault on Gold beach.
Sarah Burr, Cattini’s granddaughter, said her “beloved grandad” died on Tuesday evening, adding in a statement online: “A life so well lived. One of the last D-Day veterans left. We are so proud of him and loved him so much.
“The past nine years since D-Day 70 were some of the happiest of his life. From (like most of his generation) never having really talked about his war experiences to sharing them with so many others in recent years was so important to him.”
The Spirit of Normandy Trust estimates there are only about half a dozen British veterans left who fought on June 6, 1944, and about 25 veterans of the entire Normandy campaign, which raged on against fierce opposition until August 25.
DeSantis looks to be on the slide. Beginning to look as though the GOP might be faced with a choice between an ex President facing multiple criminal prosecutions, and a rank outsider (which might be their best shot).
I suspect Labour have identified “crime” as a weakness and are trying to minimise it/go on the attack.
Re crime. Rishi's boast at PMQs today that we'd added 20,000 new coppers since 2010 is surely wrong. He is remembering Boris's promise but forgetting that is merely to replace the cuts made by the Cameron government. The cuts, under Home Secretary Theresa May that meant Labour under Jeremy Corbyn came so close in 2017.
To be fair, "Leavers" (ie those that voted leave) might well be collectively described as naive or gullible, but not necessarily morons. The morons are people like Lord Frost who chose to interpret the vote as the licence to tear up all international agreements that made international travel more bearable. He is not just a moron but an irresponsible fuckwit.
Well it needs little explanation but in this instance because they have imposed upon the British travelling public extra checks and administrative burden and we are now, I note, limited to bringing back 18 litres of still wine into the country.
The bad old days.
The restriction on bringing back for personal use is from Customs and Excise - they fought a long battle in this while we in the EU, and it’s become an almost religious issue for them.
Comments
Those who want to abolish the monarchy need to ask: Who bells the cat? first. It wasn't even on Jezza's radar.
On the substantive point, I think you're largely right. The answer, if there is one, is 'the cat'. The monarchy will continue, I think, through apathy until someone truly awful - or, at least, unpopular - takes (or is about to take) the role. At that point, if it ever arrives, the cat will probably have nicked the bells from the mice and belled itself.
*ducks for cover*
“Brexit …. the biggest loss of British sovereignty since 1066”.
@hermannhauser , one of the UK’s & the world’s great tech entrepreneurs explains why UK chances of being “the next Silicon Valley” (touted by @Jeremy_Hunt ) are “zero”.
https://twitter.com/AndrewPRLevi/status/1648603596760440834
I lamented the passing of the Queen, but she ought to have been the last.
I watched the pageantry of the funeral, and it was impressive. I'll no doubt catch some of the coronation too.
But fragments of the true cross? Come on. In medieval times they were the tourist attraction de jour, and almost certainly utterly fake from the start.
UK semiconductor strategy delayed again
https://www.computing.co.uk/news/4112267/uk-semiconductor-strategy-delayed
Also worth listening to the interview with the CEO of Paragraf (around 1:17 into the Today program this morning).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001l25s
https://twitter.com/HarryYorke1/status/1648641912029544448?s=20
The Bank of England is on course to raise interest rates again next month, according to economists and investors, after inflation failed to come down as much as expected in March.
Official data today showed that annual consumer price inflation fell to 10.1 per cent last month, higher than the the 9.9 per cent forecast by economists, as food prices continued to surge.
The inflation reading shows that for the second consecutive month price pressures have proven more stubborn than expected, posing a headache for rate-setters at the Bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) who have forecast a sharp drop in inflation this year.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/inflation-uk-rate-march-2023-falls-qlzf6mzcf
Accepting the gift from the Pope is a symbolic gesture of friendship.
Using grooming gangs for political purposes.
I note fertiliser peaked globally in April 2022.
Is there profiteering going on by the supermarkets and manufacturers over and above their input inflation ? Lag ?
Why wasn't the stickiness forecast ?
The issue here is simple. Let us say most people would like to abolish the monarchy, though they care more about other things like pensions and NHS. and let us say 30% of people want to keep the monarchy.
No party who wants to be elected will risk the votes of the 30% being lost for the sake of a majority who may not feel it matters hugely.
So no serious party will ever put abolition of monarchy/referendum thereon into a manifesto.
So, belling the cat, which mouse (political party) will risk being eaten by the cat (losing an election) by taking a good and necessary but personally dangerous step to achieve their end.
And so, we can be certain that short of revolution or unknowable zeitgeist shift, the monarchy remains.
I think they spent around 4% of GDP on energy subsidies last year.
G7 inflation:
UK 🇬🇧 10.1%
France 🇫🇷 6.6%
Germany 🇩🇪 7.8%
US 🇺🇸 5.3%
Italy 🇮🇹 8.1%
Canada 🇨🇦 4.3%
Japan 🇯🇵 3.3%
So far the generation after that is looking promising in media terms, as well.
In general, the public seem to be prepared to give royals their support unless and until they do something to deserve losing it (Andrew, Harry etc). It seems Charles just hasn't been fully forgiven for Diana, but he is still broadly tolerated, which is just fine for (at most) the next few decades.
Inflation is eroding the value of the capital, and savings interest rates don't seem to be going up with the base rates. So it tends to be all round bad for savers.
On the other side of the equation, the value of debt is also eroding faster, but the short term interest payments are higher, so it is short term bad and long term good for for mortgage holders.
Time to call Putin's bluff in the Black Sea.
This includes PPI inflation in the #food sector, which means the CPI rate here should start to plummet soon... 👇🤞
https://ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/producerpriceinflation/latest
https://twitter.com/julianHjessop/status/1648586044202262530?s=20
However Corbyn was beaten and now both Starmer and Sunak as well as Davey back the monarchy so it is a non issue.
Yousaf doesn't but his party is now in chaos and Forbes, who might replace him, is much more pro monarchy
BTW, essay question: Did King Harald really have a better claim to the English throne than William I?
I am happy to have my “upside” gibberish thrown at me with vigour. But it is factually wrong to say I thought she was good from the get go. I really really didn’t
The issue here is simple. Let us say most people would like to abolish the monarchy, though they care more about other things like pensions and NHS. and let us say 30% of people want to keep the monarchy.
No party who wants to be elected will risk the votes of the 30% being lost for the sake of a majority who may not feel it matters hugely.
Incidentally any monarchists who wish for a more frequent display of royal pride and pageantry I would heartily recommend a visit to Amsterdam on Kingsday for it's annual feast of orange celebrations.
Indeed, the fact that she surprised on the downside is remarkable, given how little space there was on the downside.
https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1648646409376153601
If someone awful comes along there are indeed ways and means, but there's no guarantee thise in power would always be smart enough to take them. The Edward II solution is frowned upon outside the Russian Empire these days.
Joe Cattini, from Fairoaks in Hampshire, spoke to The Times in 2019 during the 75th anniversary of the Normandy invasion about being grabbed by a sergeant major at Southampton docks and made to join one of the first waves of the assault on Gold beach.
Sarah Burr, Cattini’s granddaughter, said her “beloved grandad” died on Tuesday evening, adding in a statement online: “A life so well lived. One of the last D-Day veterans left. We are so proud of him and loved him so much.
“The past nine years since D-Day 70 were some of the happiest of his life. From (like most of his generation) never having really talked about his war experiences to sharing them with so many others in recent years was so important to him.”
The Spirit of Normandy Trust estimates there are only about half a dozen British veterans left who fought on June 6, 1944, and about 25 veterans of the entire Normandy campaign, which raged on against fierce opposition until August 25.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/joe-cattini-d-day-veteran-dies-aged-100-fwj2bpkrd
One of our main markets is consumables for manufacture in the food and beverage industry. Bread producers, biscuit producers, sweets producers etc etc. We have been raising prices previously to maintain margins.
The last couple of times it has been about enhancing margins and this is partly to get them back to what our board thinks is a reasonable level following years of cost reduction pressures.
Er.... no, I said call his bluff. There was an agreement to get Ukrainian grain out of the Black Sea. It is in the world's interests. There should be a way to get all the grain out.
As someone with military knowledge you must know how easy it would be for Nato to destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet. The fear of course is nuclear escalation. If you had your way we'd just be continually inviting nuclear blackmail because we always have to be the ones to deescalate.
She then surprised me massively on the upside by being genuine, honest, and trying her best to get important stuff done. Nick Palmer has said something similar about respecting her for her genuine political principles. She tells the same story to everyone whether she's talking to the US Foreign Sec, being interviewed at a hustings, or having a chat with our own Barty Bobbins (as he reported here) etc. That's almost unique in a modern politician. I really think her one killer mistake (amongst several other smaller ones) was investing WAY too much political and emotional trust in Kwasi. He just wasn't the reliable partner needed.
Researchers from two universities say they want to examine and learn from the conduct of lawyers in the Horizon IT affair which led to hundreds of postmasters being wrongly accused of fraud and theft.
The project, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, is led by Professor Richard Moorhead and Professor Rebecca Helm from the University of Exeter and Dr Karen Nokes from UCL. Together they aim to understand how the scandal was allowed to develop over 20 years and what implications it has for professional ethics and the in-house legal sector.
Moorhead said: ‘The research will enable us to deepen our engagement with the victims affected by the scandal; ensure that the right lessons are learned about what went wrong and why; and work on practical strategies to reduce the chances of such terrible events happening again.’
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/research-begins-into-lawyers-role-in-post-office-scandal/5115768.article#.ZD_RxaqQTK0.twitter
According to @YouGov it's currently behind immigration, Brexit, and the environment (and health and economy obvs).
It's not even in the top ten issues in polling by @IpsosUK
https://twitter.com/drjennings/status/1648649614839382019?s=20
I suspect Labour have identified “crime” as a weakness and are trying to minimise it/go on the attack.
I cannot see it.
Yes.
Beginning to look as though the GOP might be faced with a choice between an ex President facing multiple criminal prosecutions, and a rank outsider (which might be their best shot).
DeSantis under pressure to dispel GOP concerns over 2024
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3955111-desantis-pressure-gop-trump-2024/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/19/snp-arrests-test-drove-campervan-battle-bus-nicola-sturgeon/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/may/09/highereducation.humanities
And then there is the obvious fact that many of them, including a number of them on here, that are clearly fascist, or at least highly nationalistically prejudiced in their outlook.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/will-nicola-sturgeon-be-arrested-snp-2023-jrbftdjjm
On an entirely different subject, I had a very comfortable time driving in Crete the other week.
“As the final step in our research, we are investigating suitable punishments for the decision makers”
Against all the previous evidence of her awkward speaking style, she came across as articulate, pointed, and confident.
Sunak surprised on the downside with increasingly desperate waffle.
The bad old days.
https://pressat.co.uk/releases/time-team-and-operation-nightingale-reunite-for-band-of-brothers-dig-c00f218a200128ee1bc37d70b533408a/
To be fair, "Leavers" (ie those that voted leave) might well be collectively described as naive or gullible, but not necessarily morons. The morons are people like Lord Frost who chose to interpret the vote as the licence to tear up all international agreements that made international travel more bearable. He is not just a moron but an irresponsible fuckwit.