I wonder how much of our problem's are really down to money, actually.
We probably need another £150bn of tax revenue coming in a year, each year, of which £80-90bn needs to go on extra spending on the education, science, R&D, transport, energy, crime & justice, defence and the NHS and about £50bn on reducing income taxes and NI.
No party can get close to that. Unless they can get Britain to grow an insanely fast way, which would need us to develop new technologies and capabilities and retain all the workers & IP (we normally cash out to the Americans inside 18 months).
There are huge amounts of ways that the Government could rein in spending, cut taxes and regulation, and encourage better economical outcomes. They don't do it because they don't want to. This 'it's all too haaaaard' nonsense like a child waving its unfinished homework around is you deluding yourself. Governments are meant to acheive difficult things. If they can't do that, fuck off and let someone else have a try.
Cutting spending any further is so difficult that your heroine Liz Truss didn't even pretend she was going to balance the books for her tax cuts by doing so. That's why she went for the argument that Britain could easily borrow loads more, only to come rapidly unstuck when she found that actually the country couldn't - a lesson that I hope Rachel Reeves has taken to heart.
You could cut spending by investing in productivity. My current job is automating front-to-back flows in a bank. The idea of the future state is that 99%+ of trades will not require human touch after they are made - settlement, invoices, reconciliation, anti-fraud etc will all be automated. The trick is to design and implement the system so that the 1% that need manual attention are found, and the system has the flexibility to deal with them.
Imagine the same applied to the DVLA.
I find it easier to imagine the anarchic bureaucracy that would make implementing such a project such a pain in the arse.
Assuming the leaders remain Sunak, Starmer, and Davey, when was the last general election where the Lib Dem/Liberal leader had cabinet experience and the leader of the opposition didn't?
If you don't count Jo Swinson and Tim Farron the answer's 1935 when Herbert Samuel was Liberal leader and Attlee had just been promoted to Labour leader. He had held the post of Postmaster General and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under Macdonald, but my understanding is they were outside cabinet at the time.
One thing that strikes me is the relatively low level of activity in the locals. Even the LibDems have been relatively subdued here, with just one leaflet so far and only a handful of small posters. I've seen exactly one Tory poster. Labour has been more active than last time but from a low base - last time we only canvassed one target ward (so were surprised to win two). The Green effort seems to come down to two people, though they have done a good job with a few big posters in key sites. Nobody made a special effort to target PVs.
Locals are always lower-key, but this one is definitely lower than last time. What are others seeing?
There is a 'Vote Labour' poster almost as large as Cummings' ego at the end of Rugeley Road in Hednesford, cunningly positioned so the largest possible number of motorists can see it while stuck in an enormous traffic jam at the junction for Bradbury Lane (caused by roadworks that have been supported by mis phased traffic lights).
There's also one in south Wolverhampton next to the Wombourme turning.
Otherwise, I've seen nothing.
I was in Alresford yesterday and saw 6 LD diamonds, including one massive one on the high-street, but also 5 houses displaying Conservative rectangles.
I'm not sure I set too much store by it. The LDs have always been tremendously pushy with their diamonds; I was more surprised to see some people still putting their Conservative colours on display.
I used to live in Alresford, worst thing I ever did was sell my cottage in a recession.
On topic, I think Sunak's ratings will go down, not up, over the next year. He does some things well. But his mode of presentation is excruciating, and I think people will become increasingly irritated by it. His enthusiasm when he speaks to camera is childlike rather than infectious, and oozes platitudinous insincerity. I can't help thinking in my head that he's an overgrown schoolboy who should be still wearing short trousers.
In support of my view, somebody (thanks whoever) helpfully posted this video of him yesterday. Absolutely cringeworthy and toe-curlingly embarrassing. And who on earth thought it was a good idea for him to do this from an opulent state room rather than from, say, the side of a football field?
Assuming the leaders remain Sunak, Starmer, and Davey, when was the last general election where the Lib Dem/Liberal leader had cabinet experience and the leader of the opposition didn't?
87 if you include David Owen in the Alliance?
Pedantry insists I point out he was never leader of the Liberals/Liberal Democrats but yours is a fair point.
Assuming the leaders remain Sunak, Starmer, and Davey, when was the last general election where the Lib Dem/Liberal leader had cabinet experience and the leader of the opposition didn't?
If you don't count Jo Swinson and Tim Farron the answer's 1935 when Herbert Samuel was Liberal leader and Attlee had just been promoted to Labour leader. He had held the post of Postmaster General and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under Macdonald, but my understanding is they were outside cabinet at the time.
Otherwise, you are looking at 1923.
Cheers, I don't count Swinson and Farron as they were never in the cabinet in first Cameron ministry.
Presumably the Ukrainian govt will reimburse us for these ?
Why would you presume that?
The Ukrainian government is broke and entirely reliant on financial support from outside to keep functioning. I guess we could saddle them with an immense debt and look forward to repayment in the 2070s, but I'm perfectly happy for us to see it as worthwhile spending for our own defence.
Exactly , better peanuts just now than billions and bodies later
While in the last thread people were complaining about the lack of labour for hospitality after Brexit this thread, and his article in the times, on the changing nature of migration and the huge increase in legal migration under the ‘far right’ govt is interesting and people in this country are perfectly relaxed about it.
I wonder how much of our problem's are really down to money, actually.
We probably need another £150bn of tax revenue coming in a year, each year, of which £80-90bn needs to go on extra spending on the education, science, R&D, transport, energy, crime & justice, defence and the NHS and about £50bn on reducing income taxes and NI.
No party can get close to that. Unless they can get Britain to grow an insanely fast way, which would need us to develop new technologies and capabilities and retain all the workers & IP (we normally cash out to the Americans inside 18 months).
There are huge amounts of ways that the Government could rein in spending, cut taxes and regulation, and encourage better economical outcomes. They don't do it because they don't want to. This 'it's all too haaaaard' nonsense like a child waving its unfinished homework around is you deluding yourself. Governments are meant to acheive difficult things. If they can't do that, fuck off and let someone else have a try.
Cutting spending any further is so difficult that your heroine Liz Truss didn't even pretend she was going to balance the books for her tax cuts by doing so. That's why she went for the argument that Britain could easily borrow loads more, only to come rapidly unstuck when she found that actually the country couldn't - a lesson that I hope Rachel Reeves has taken to heart.
You could cut spending by investing in productivity. My current job is automating front-to-back flows in a bank. The idea of the future state is that 99%+ of trades will not require human touch after they are made - settlement, invoices, reconciliation, anti-fraud etc will all be automated. The trick is to design and implement the system so that the 1% that need manual attention are found, and the system has the flexibility to deal with them.
Imagine the same applied to the DVLA.
I find it easier to imagine the anarchic bureaucracy that would make implementing such a project such a pain in the arse.
Think of it a savagely smashing rice bowls with a sledge hammer.
A lot of piss ants will lose the ant hills they piss from.
In the case of the DVLA, you would probably end up with a head count of 25% of current. Though the remaining staff would be higher paid and skilled.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Presumably the Ukrainian govt will reimburse us for these ?
Less than Royals will filch in a day or the Tories for that matter or even Mone so chickenfeed Taz.
That’s true enough Malc.
Hope you’re all well up,there.
Hello Taz, yes all well, hope you and family are same. Finally had some rain last night , we have had nice weather for some time, South West coast at least.
Presumably the Ukrainian govt will reimburse us for these ?
Why should it?
It is completely wrong to shaft people financially while they are fighting for freedom - ours as well as theirs.
And this is one type of aid which is pretty unlikely to be lost in corruption, I'd guess.
The free advertising of British weapons shitting on Russian (and Russian inspired) weapons is probably worth billions in the international arms market.
There are no British TBMs. The choice would be American or the usual suspects (India, Serbia, Turkey).
One thing that strikes me is the relatively low level of activity in the locals. Even the LibDems have been relatively subdued here, with just one leaflet so far and only a handful of small posters. I've seen exactly one Tory poster. Labour has been more active than last time but from a low base - last time we only canvassed one target ward (so were surprised to win two). The Green effort seems to come down to two people, though they have done a good job with a few big posters in key sites. Nobody made a special effort to target PVs.
Locals are always lower-key, but this one is definitely lower than last time. What are others seeing?
There is a 'Vote Labour' poster almost as large as Cummings' ego at the end of Rugeley Road in Hednesford, cunningly positioned so the largest possible number of motorists can see it while stuck in an enormous traffic jam at the junction for Bradbury Lane (caused by roadworks that have been supported by mis phased traffic lights).
There's also one in south Wolverhampton next to the Wombourme turning.
Otherwise, I've seen nothing.
I was in Alresford yesterday and saw 6 LD diamonds, including one massive one on the high-street, but also 5 houses displaying Conservative rectangles.
I'm not sure I set too much store by it. The LDs have always been tremendously pushy with their diamonds; I was more surprised to see some people still putting their Conservative colours on display.
I used to live in Alresford, worst thing I ever did was sell my cottage in a recession.
Ah so the truth comes out at last. You are really a soft southern @malcolmg
Assuming the leaders remain Sunak, Starmer, and Davey, when was the last general election where the Lib Dem/Liberal leader had cabinet experience and the leader of the opposition didn't?
87 if you include David Owen in the Alliance?
I never thought of him.
I don't know an awful lot about the 1987 election. Was there a similar 'deal' between Steele/Owen as there had been between Steele/Hattersley over who would be PM if the Alliance won? Or had reality checked back in and they knew it wasn't going to happen?
From the little I know about David Owen I can't imagine he would have easily accepted a junior role to anyone else.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
One thing that strikes me is the relatively low level of activity in the locals. Even the LibDems have been relatively subdued here, with just one leaflet so far and only a handful of small posters. I've seen exactly one Tory poster. Labour has been more active than last time but from a low base - last time we only canvassed one target ward (so were surprised to win two). The Green effort seems to come down to two people, though they have done a good job with a few big posters in key sites. Nobody made a special effort to target PVs.
Locals are always lower-key, but this one is definitely lower than last time. What are others seeing?
There is a 'Vote Labour' poster almost as large as Cummings' ego at the end of Rugeley Road in Hednesford, cunningly positioned so the largest possible number of motorists can see it while stuck in an enormous traffic jam at the junction for Bradbury Lane (caused by roadworks that have been supported by mis phased traffic lights).
There's also one in south Wolverhampton next to the Wombourme turning.
Otherwise, I've seen nothing.
Up in the wilds of South Kesteven we have had one election leaflet from the two local Tory candidates - posted with a stamp rather than delivered by hand - and I have seen a repeating series of posts on Facebook from a Labour candidate in a neighbouring district.
Apart from that absolutely nothing. No posters, flyers, knocks on the door, nothing.
We have actually seen more activity from the Parish council trying to find new people to stand as councillors than we have from the local elections.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
I wonder how much of our problem's are really down to money, actually.
We probably need another £150bn of tax revenue coming in a year, each year, of which £80-90bn needs to go on extra spending on the education, science, R&D, transport, energy, crime & justice, defence and the NHS and about £50bn on reducing income taxes and NI.
No party can get close to that. Unless they can get Britain to grow an insanely fast way, which would need us to develop new technologies and capabilities and retain all the workers & IP (we normally cash out to the Americans inside 18 months).
There are huge amounts of ways that the Government could rein in spending, cut taxes and regulation, and encourage better economical outcomes. They don't do it because they don't want to. This 'it's all too haaaaard' nonsense like a child waving its unfinished homework around is you deluding yourself. Governments are meant to acheive difficult things. If they can't do that, fuck off and let someone else have a try.
Cutting spending any further is so difficult that your heroine Liz Truss didn't even pretend she was going to balance the books for her tax cuts by doing so. That's why she went for the argument that Britain could easily borrow loads more, only to come rapidly unstuck when she found that actually the country couldn't - a lesson that I hope Rachel Reeves has taken to heart.
Sunak's spectacular failure to grow the economy has already resulted in borrowing being £13 billion over plan. That will balloon if the economy continues to flatline, which seems likely with those two clowns at the helm. Growth or lack of it has a massive impact on borrowing, which is why £40 billion then seems quite a canny investment when looked at now. The hairshirt bit (unless it comes to pissing money at the French, the EU, HS2 or the BOE) will end up costing us a lot more.
Sunak's spectacular inability to grow the economy?
In 6 months? Having taken over from a PM who lurched towards financial crisis?
One thing that strikes me is the relatively low level of activity in the locals. Even the LibDems have been relatively subdued here, with just one leaflet so far and only a handful of small posters. I've seen exactly one Tory poster. Labour has been more active than last time but from a low base - last time we only canvassed one target ward (so were surprised to win two). The Green effort seems to come down to two people, though they have done a good job with a few big posters in key sites. Nobody made a special effort to target PVs.
Locals are always lower-key, but this one is definitely lower than last time. What are others seeing?
There is a 'Vote Labour' poster almost as large as Cummings' ego at the end of Rugeley Road in Hednesford, cunningly positioned so the largest possible number of motorists can see it while stuck in an enormous traffic jam at the junction for Bradbury Lane (caused by roadworks that have been supported by mis phased traffic lights).
There's also one in south Wolverhampton next to the Wombourme turning.
Otherwise, I've seen nothing.
I was in Alresford yesterday and saw 6 LD diamonds, including one massive one on the high-street, but also 5 houses displaying Conservative rectangles.
I'm not sure I set too much store by it. The LDs have always been tremendously pushy with their diamonds; I was more surprised to see some people still putting their Conservative colours on display.
I used to live in Alresford, worst thing I ever did was sell my cottage in a recession.
Ah so the truth comes out at last. You are really a soft southern @malcolmg
I was merely on recces for some years KJH, Little Gaddesden , Hemel Hempstead first time , then a break in California for a few years and back to Chandlers Ford, Alresford and then on travels again , I also had almost a year in The Swan in Winchester in between.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
And then it becomes political, where you might have to swear allegiance to someone you actively voted against and don't like - even worse.
The monarch is the Head of State, politically neutral, and a public servant.
You should wish him well in his role, and take the oath.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Did you swear an oath to Queen Elizabeth? If not then you have been living your life as a traitor.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
And then it becomes political, where you might have to swear allegiance to someone you actively voted against and don't like - even worse.
The monarch is the Head of State, politically neutral, and a public servant.
You should wish him well in his role, and take the oath.
So be it, if the elected head of state turns out to be a roaster then we can vote them out, cannot do that with King Charles III.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
From high up an Alpine valley, the Sunday Rawnsley:
That’s a blow for the theory of nominative determinism. Richard Sharp was terribly dim when it came to realising that he could not possibly continue as chair of the BBC.
Mr Sharp’s involvement in the rackety personal finances of the former prime minister only came to light as the result of investigatory journalism. Absent that, it might very well have remained concealed that he was a go-between in the arrangement of an £800,000 loan guarantee to the prime minister who promoted him for the key post at the BBC. Neither of the inquiries into this affair were instigated by the government.
He joins the very long list of people who wandered recklessly close to the ethical black hole that is Mr Johnson and became consumed by it. I can’t say that it has done reputational damage to Mr Johnson himself because the disgraced former prime minister had no respect left to lose.
We don’t just need a new chair for the BBC, we need cleaner thinking about its relationship with government. On Labour’s part, Ms Powell has set up a comprehensive review of the governance of the broadcaster. Her stated purpose is to find ways in which to strengthen the corporation. I am going to suggest a step that some in her party will be reluctant to take, because it is not just Tories who like to exploit the patronage powers of office. It would be to his credit, and possibly also to his advantage, if Sir Keir Starmer were to demonstrate his commitment to BBC independence by pledging that a government led by him will not seek to install any Labour partisans at the broadcaster.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
Apparently Musky-baby's been talking about the SuperHeavy launch the other day. Here are some takeaways: *) Three engines did not start properly. The rocket has a thrust margin of three engines. *) At T+27, SpaceX lost comms with the rocket (JJ - I'm guessing temporarily) *) Some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20 *) SpaceX does not "see evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way. *) Raptor production has slowed down because they've got loads of unused engines. *) It seems like the power slide on lift-off was unplanned and uncontrolled, and could easily have gone into the tower.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
It's interesting to consider this as a parallel to the discussion around infant baptism that happened on here recently. Any new British citizen who becomes a citizen by choice, rather than by birth, will be expected to take the oath of allegiance. In a similar way new adult citizens of any country, in one form or another, will do the same.
Some Christians will argue that fellow believers should be baptized as adults, and I suppose, as a parallel, you could make a case for requiring everyone to make an oath of allegiance to the monarch, after their 18th birthday, as a pre-requisite to exercising the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, such as voting.
I'm not sure I'd necessarily make that argument, but the response of some on here to bring given the option to give an oath of allegiance does seem a bit prissy when compared to the absolute requirement to do so for immigrant citizens.
One thing that strikes me is the relatively low level of activity in the locals. Even the LibDems have been relatively subdued here, with just one leaflet so far and only a handful of small posters. I've seen exactly one Tory poster. Labour has been more active than last time but from a low base - last time we only canvassed one target ward (so were surprised to win two). The Green effort seems to come down to two people, though they have done a good job with a few big posters in key sites. Nobody made a special effort to target PVs.
Locals are always lower-key, but this one is definitely lower than last time. What are others seeing?
There is a 'Vote Labour' poster almost as large as Cummings' ego at the end of Rugeley Road in Hednesford, cunningly positioned so the largest possible number of motorists can see it while stuck in an enormous traffic jam at the junction for Bradbury Lane (caused by roadworks that have been supported by mis phased traffic lights).
There's also one in south Wolverhampton next to the Wombourme turning.
Otherwise, I've seen nothing.
I was in Alresford yesterday and saw 6 LD diamonds, including one massive one on the high-street, but also 5 houses displaying Conservative rectangles.
I'm not sure I set too much store by it. The LDs have always been tremendously pushy with their diamonds; I was more surprised to see some people still putting their Conservative colours on display.
I used to live in Alresford, worst thing I ever did was sell my cottage in a recession.
Ah so the truth comes out at last. You are really a soft southern @malcolmg
I was merely on recces for some years KJH, Little Gaddesden , Hemel Hempstead first time , then a break in California for a few years and back to Chandlers Ford, Alresford and then on travels again , I also had almost a year in The Swan in Winchester in between.
I'm sure we softened you up @malcolmg. It is why you make such polite tolerant posts.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
And then it becomes political, where you might have to swear allegiance to someone you actively voted against and don't like - even worse.
The monarch is the Head of State, politically neutral, and a public servant.
You should wish him well in his role, and take the oath.
The monarch is only polotically neutral if he chooses to be. The last one was pretty good at it. I'm not sure this one gets it.
Presumably the Ukrainian govt will reimburse us for these ?
Why should it?
It is completely wrong to shaft people financially while they are fighting for freedom - ours as well as theirs.
And this is one type of aid which is pretty unlikely to be lost in corruption, I'd guess.
The free advertising of British weapons shitting on Russian (and Russian inspired) weapons is probably worth billions in the international arms market.
There are no British TBMs. The choice would be American or the usual suspects (India, Serbia, Turkey).
TBMs come from Germany.
Herrenknecht AG, typically.
The assumption of Theatre Ballistic Missiles is probably not the the idea. Repeated mentions of Storm Shadow pop up - which has the the characteristics above.
Ground launch has been tested during development, IIRC.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
I look forward to reading How To Defeat Wokeism when it's published.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
And then it becomes political, where you might have to swear allegiance to someone you actively voted against and don't like - even worse.
The monarch is the Head of State, politically neutral, and a public servant.
You should wish him well in his role, and take the oath.
So be it, if the elected head of state turns out to be a roaster then we can vote them out, cannot do that with King Charles III.
And, in the meantime, they take a political mandate and divide the country.
The monarch governs according to the constitution and convention, and thus is a figure of unity.
Electing gains nothing except the potential for more politically division, and loses nearly 1,500 years of history.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
Is it really that much more absurd than the oaths required by republics, such as, say, these words that I would be required to utter were I ever to take up Irish citizenship?
“I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.
I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.”
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
I look forward to reading How To Defeat Wokeism when it's published.
How to defend Wokeism would be more interesting, given the putative author.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
And then it becomes political, where you might have to swear allegiance to someone you actively voted against and don't like - even worse.
The monarch is the Head of State, politically neutral, and a public servant.
You should wish him well in his role, and take the oath.
The monarch is only polotically neutral if he chooses to be. The last one was pretty good at it. I'm not sure this one gets it.
I have my concerns about Charles's personal judgement in some areas, but I will wish him well and pledge my allegiance and hope he learns on the job and learns to take more advice.
It's not an easy one. It's far more important he has us rooting for him to unite the country and Commonwealth, represent us and our values, and so I am burying any reservations I have and taking a bigger view.
It won't help for me to fold my arms and abstain from it. And I quite like the idea of taking an oath anyway and being involved.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
It's interesting to consider this as a parallel to the discussion around infant baptism that happened on here recently. Any new British citizen who becomes a citizen by choice, rather than by birth, will be expected to take the oath of allegiance. In a similar way new adult citizens of any country, in one form or another, will do the same.
Some Christians will argue that fellow believers should be baptized as adults, and I suppose, as a parallel, you could make a case for requiring everyone to make an oath of allegiance to the monarch, after their 18th birthday, as a pre-requisite to exercising the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, such as voting.
I'm not sure I'd necessarily make that argument, but the response of some on here to bring given the option to give an oath of allegiance does seem a bit prissy when compared to the absolute requirement to do so for immigrant citizens.
You also have to take the oath in certain occupations including on swearing in as an MP (the reason SF continue to boycott the HoC).
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
Is it really that much more absurd than the oaths required by republics, such as, say, these words that I would be required to utter were I ever to take up Irish citizenship?
“I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.
I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.”
also this - 'It's great the cable networks are here tonight ... Fox News, owned by Dominion Voting Systems ... I'd call Fox honest fair and truthful. But then I could be sued for defamation."'
In principle, I don't think it is really. It's only what the military do: not because of the virtues of those people but because they embody the nation, and an abstract idea of what that is. It's not swearing allegiance to the state - which is like swearing allegiance to the machinery of government; and nor is it swearing allegiance to the people - who can be frustratingly contradictory. In practise, of course I'm not going to be swearing allegiance to that effete buffoon.
One thing I've learnt is to take no notice of election posters. I learnt this in 1983, when the London constituency I lived in seemed to have Vote Labour posters in every other window, as we prepared for a huge victory over Thatcher. The Tories won the seat (and the GE of course) very easily.
Incidentally, the Labour candidate in the seat I was in was a young firebrand called John McDonnell. Wonder what happened to him?
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
He may well be nicer than Hitler too.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
Apparently Musky-baby's been talking about the SuperHeavy launch the other day. Here are some takeaways: *) Three engines did not start properly. The rocket has a thrust margin of three engines. *) At T+27, SpaceX lost comms with the rocket (JJ - I'm guessing temporarily) *) Some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20 *) SpaceX does not "see evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way. *) Raptor production has slowed down because they've got loads of unused engines. *) It seems like the power slide on lift-off was unplanned and uncontrolled, and could easily have gone into the tower.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
Note, though, that our elected representatives are obliged to do so in order to take up their seats in Parliament.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
You could post more on PB? Give us your thought on aliens?
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
No oath in the Senior Service! It was assumed that we would dedicate ourselves to sailing around the world looking for people to fight out of sheer enthusiasm.
Presumably the Ukrainian govt will reimburse us for these ?
Why should it?
It is completely wrong to shaft people financially while they are fighting for freedom - ours as well as theirs.
And this is one type of aid which is pretty unlikely to be lost in corruption, I'd guess.
The free advertising of British weapons shitting on Russian (and Russian inspired) weapons is probably worth billions in the international arms market.
Everyone wants NLAW etc. now….
The interesting thing about NLAW versus Javelin is that they appear to be complementary, rather than competitor, systems. NLAW is shorter range, more luggable, one-use, and much cheaper; whilst Javelin is much longer range, reloadable, heavier and can be reloaded.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
He has less power than her as well. And is not corrupt or incompetant in the way she is.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
May I nominate you as British ambassador to the UN? You'd have just the right attitude towards representatives from the other four permanent members of the Security Council.
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
Is it really that much more absurd than the oaths required by republics, such as, say, these words that I would be required to utter were I ever to take up Irish citizenship?
“I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.
I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.”
I wonder how much of our problem's are really down to money, actually.
We probably need another £150bn of tax revenue coming in a year, each year, of which £80-90bn needs to go on extra spending on the education, science, R&D, transport, energy, crime & justice, defence and the NHS and about £50bn on reducing income taxes and NI.
No party can get close to that. Unless they can get Britain to grow an insanely fast way, which would need us to develop new technologies and capabilities and retain all the workers & IP (we normally cash out to the Americans inside 18 months).
Part of the issue is that the government does too much. We need to cut £100bn in spending to cut taxes to get the economy growing. £56bn is going to be cut this year as we end energy subsidies and another £30bn will go as the RPI rate falls and debt interest falls. That gets us most of the way there but we also need to cut another £15-20bn from actual spending so we can expand full business expensing to all categories and a big NI cut for working age people and removing all of the income cliff edges like the child benefit taper, allowance withdrawal and childcare eligibility removal. I'd be ok with borrowing £20-30bn per year extra to fund investment in public infrastructure for the next 10 years as it will increase our growth rate and pay for itself.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
You could post more on PB? Give us your thought on aliens?
What about thoughts on Trans Woke Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs?
I wonder how much of our problem's are really down to money, actually.
We probably need another £150bn of tax revenue coming in a year, each year, of which £80-90bn needs to go on extra spending on the education, science, R&D, transport, energy, crime & justice, defence and the NHS and about £50bn on reducing income taxes and NI.
No party can get close to that. Unless they can get Britain to grow an insanely fast way, which would need us to develop new technologies and capabilities and retain all the workers & IP (we normally cash out to the Americans inside 18 months).
There are huge amounts of ways that the Government could rein in spending, cut taxes and regulation, and encourage better economical outcomes. They don't do it because they don't want to. This 'it's all too haaaaard' nonsense like a child waving its unfinished homework around is you deluding yourself. Governments are meant to acheive difficult things. If they can't do that, fuck off and let someone else have a try.
Cutting spending any further is so difficult that your heroine Liz Truss didn't even pretend she was going to balance the books for her tax cuts by doing so. That's why she went for the argument that Britain could easily borrow loads more, only to come rapidly unstuck when she found that actually the country couldn't - a lesson that I hope Rachel Reeves has taken to heart.
Sunak's spectacular failure to grow the economy has already resulted in borrowing being £13 billion over plan. That will balloon if the economy continues to flatline, which seems likely with those two clowns at the helm. Growth or lack of it has a massive impact on borrowing, which is why £40 billion then seems quite a canny investment when looked at now. The hairshirt bit (unless it comes to pissing money at the French, the EU, HS2 or the BOE) will end up costing us a lot more.
Borrowing has come in under forecast.
I'll stick my neck out and say that I think growth will be respectable (about 2% pa) this year and next.
I will try and find the source of my 13bn figure.
However, the fact that the economy is managing to bump along somewhat under the enormous strain, merely makes my point that Truss's supply side reforms could have kick-started the economy properly, which would have reduced our borrowing requirement significantly. Things could look an awful lot different.
However, that is an economic policy point - the fact is that she failed in the game of politics, as we all know.
Which is 80% of the job of course. I genuinely think she might have been ok if she'd just held off for a little bit. No one on her side or against it was ready for the attempt.
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
No oath in the Senior Service! It was assumed that we would dedicate ourselves to sailing around the world looking for people to fight out of sheer enthusiasm.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
Presumably the Ukrainian govt will reimburse us for these ?
Why should it?
It is completely wrong to shaft people financially while they are fighting for freedom - ours as well as theirs.
And this is one type of aid which is pretty unlikely to be lost in corruption, I'd guess.
The free advertising of British weapons shitting on Russian (and Russian inspired) weapons is probably worth billions in the international arms market.
Everyone wants NLAW etc. now….
The interesting thing about NLAW versus Javelin is that they appear to be complementary, rather than competitor, systems. NLAW is shorter range, more luggable, one-use, and much cheaper; whilst Javelin is much longer range, reloadable, heavier and can be reloaded.
Strangely, they were procured to be complementary.
So, the UK Army specified a set of systems -
1) That worked 2) That worked in the manner intended 3) That cost something like the original planned cost 4) That didn't involve a special UK variant in Imperial measure or something similarly stupid.
I think a Judge led enquiry into the complete failure of this program to achieve the normal goals of a MOD program is vital.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
You could post more on PB? Give us your thought on aliens?
What about thoughts on Trans Woke Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs?
Adopt a neopet and give us hourly updates as to your training regime.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
I was on the phone to a tory party member on Friday. Our friendship has occasionally come close to breaking but we've held on. Anyway, he really surprised me by saying he wasn't going to watch on Saturday and that he's 'rather fed up with the monarchy'. This from someone who was glued to the funeral of HMQ - because he admired and respected her. He did go on to say that he quite likes Charles.
Needless to say I shall be swearing an oath of allegiance. My views are well known, acerbic, and there's no need to repeat them.
Apparently Musky-baby's been talking about the SuperHeavy launch the other day. Here are some takeaways: *) Three engines did not start properly. The rocket has a thrust margin of three engines. *) At T+27, SpaceX lost comms with the rocket (JJ - I'm guessing temporarily) *) Some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20 *) SpaceX does not "see evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way. *) Raptor production has slowed down because they've got loads of unused engines. *) It seems like the power slide on lift-off was unplanned and uncontrolled, and could easily have gone into the tower.
The explosion was associated with hydraulic system. Which is being replaced by 100% electric actuators on the next vehicle.
The other thing missing from the the above is that the set of engines on B7 were not uniform and required individual startup sequences.
"The explosion was associated with hydraulic system."
That's not been confirmed, and AFAIAA wasn't said by Musk. And even if it is correct, it's also unclear whether the hydraulic system was the cause of the explosion or a symptom.
It's fairly clear that the Raptor engines are not up to the task atm. I know you want them to be (and so do I), but wish-crafting excuses such as concrete debris isn't looking at it the reality. Three did not properly start up; and others fragged themselves as the vehicle ascended.
Worse, any changes required on the raptors would need to be done to all the ones they've already made and are in store.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Did you swear an oath to Queen Elizabeth? If not then you have been living your life as a traitor.
There was no public oath at the late Queens coronation in 1953, not least because my grandmother who stood to attention most of the day, being an ardent royallist, would have made everyone present to solemnly join in
As a matter of interest apart from @OldKingCole and myself, are there any other of our fellow posters able to recall the Queens coronation or are we the only ones?
Apparently Musky-baby's been talking about the SuperHeavy launch the other day. Here are some takeaways: *) Three engines did not start properly. The rocket has a thrust margin of three engines. *) At T+27, SpaceX lost comms with the rocket (JJ - I'm guessing temporarily) *) Some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20 *) SpaceX does not "see evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way. *) Raptor production has slowed down because they've got loads of unused engines. *) It seems like the power slide on lift-off was unplanned and uncontrolled, and could easily have gone into the tower.
The explosion was associated with hydraulic system. Which is being replaced by 100% electric actuators on the next vehicle.
The other thing missing from the the above is that the set of engines on B7 were not uniform and required individual startup sequences.
"The explosion was associated with hydraulic system."
That's not been confirmed, and AFAIAA wasn't said by Musk. And even if it is correct, it's also unclear whether the hydraulic system was the cause of the explosion or a symptom.
It's fairly clear that the Raptor engines are not up to the task atm. I know you want them to be (and so do I), but wish-crafting excuses such as concrete debris isn't looking at it the reality. Three did not properly start up; and others fragged themselves as the vehicle ascended.
Worse, any changes required on the raptors would need to be done to all the ones they've already made and are in store.
The bang on ascent was where the hydraulic power units were in the vehicle. Nothing much else there.
EDIT: IIRC it is quite a high pressure system, which is needed to move the grid fins on descent. Which are huge - 5m or so long. Hence the move to electrics.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
You could post more on PB? Give us your thought on aliens?
What about thoughts on Trans Woke Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs?
TOP Scottish historian Sir Tom Devine has claimed that the cause of Scottish independence is “virtually dead for at least a generation”.
In comments published by the BBC, the emeritus professor at Edinburgh University stated that: "Given recent events, I would honestly have to say that the cause of independence is virtually dead for at least a generation."
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
Now you see if ChatGPT could have done it inside 30 seconds. Anyone else would take a holiday but that's your day job.
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
No oath in the Senior Service! It was assumed that we would dedicate ourselves to sailing around the world looking for people to fight out of sheer enthusiasm.
I thought the traditional fighting motivation was rum rations.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Indeed, nobody elected him which means nobody had a choice in this, so I'm not 'bending the knee' for him.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
And then it becomes political, where you might have to swear allegiance to someone you actively voted against and don't like - even worse.
The monarch is the Head of State, politically neutral, and a public servant.
You should wish him well in his role, and take the oath.
The monarch is only polotically neutral if he chooses to be. The last one was pretty good at it. I'm not sure this one gets it.
I have my concerns about Charles's personal judgement in some areas, but I will wish him well and pledge my allegiance and hope he learns on the job and learns to take more advice.
It's not an easy one. It's far more important he has us rooting for him to unite the country and Commonwealth, represent us and our values, and so I am burying any reservations I have and taking a bigger view.
It won't help for me to fold my arms and abstain from it. And I quite like the idea of taking an oath anyway and being involved.
Well, fair enough. I think your position is the more interesting one; it depends upon taking some positions which are pretty uncommon nowadays but not necessarily wrong because of that. I can provide all sorts of arguments for my view and I don't think any of them would be new to you, but I suspect at bottom it comes down to the fact I just don't like the man. Nothing to do with adultery - I liked his ex-wife even less, and in any case his personal life is none of my business. I just don't find him likeable, and my heart sinks somewhat when I look at him and realise he is head of state.
Apparently Musky-baby's been talking about the SuperHeavy launch the other day. Here are some takeaways: *) Three engines did not start properly. The rocket has a thrust margin of three engines. *) At T+27, SpaceX lost comms with the rocket (JJ - I'm guessing temporarily) *) Some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20 *) SpaceX does not "see evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way. *) Raptor production has slowed down because they've got loads of unused engines. *) It seems like the power slide on lift-off was unplanned and uncontrolled, and could easily have gone into the tower.
The explosion was associated with hydraulic system. Which is being replaced by 100% electric actuators on the next vehicle.
The other thing missing from the the above is that the set of engines on B7 were not uniform and required individual startup sequences.
"The explosion was associated with hydraulic system."
That's not been confirmed, and AFAIAA wasn't said by Musk. And even if it is correct, it's also unclear whether the hydraulic system was the cause of the explosion or a symptom.
It's fairly clear that the Raptor engines are not up to the task atm. I know you want them to be (and so do I), but wish-crafting excuses such as concrete debris isn't looking at it the reality. Three did not properly start up; and others fragged themselves as the vehicle ascended.
Worse, any changes required on the raptors would need to be done to all the ones they've already made and are in store.
The bang on ascent was where the hydraulic power units were in the vehicle. Nothing much else there.
Yes... but that doesn't mean that whatever happened was *caused* by the hydraulic unit exploding. It might well be the other way around, with something else failing causing the hydraulics unit to fail.
I'm very bearish on SH/SS. I so want it to succeed quickly, but I see little indication that it's going to.
On topic, I think Sunak's ratings will go down, not up, over the next year. He does some things well. But his mode of presentation is excruciating, and I think people will become increasingly irritated by it. His enthusiasm when he speaks to camera is childlike rather than infectious, and oozes platitudinous insincerity. I can't help thinking in my head that he's an overgrown schoolboy who should be still wearing short trousers.
In support of my view, somebody (thanks whoever) helpfully posted this video of him yesterday. Absolutely cringeworthy and toe-curlingly embarrassing. And who on earth thought it was a good idea for him to do this from an opulent state room rather than from, say, the side of a football field?
1 x Incompetent and dud performer 1 x Incompetent, immoral, but brilliant performer 1 x Incompetent, loopy, and appalling performer 1 x Competent but dud performer
I think Starmer will out-perform Sunak in the GE campaign which, if that's right, shows you just awful Sunak will be.
We were just saying that that can definitely get in the sea.
Who is "we"?
There's a lot of egoism here, and not much duty. People who react like this tend to have a puffed up sense of their own importance and not much sense of their wider obligations to the country, which they take for granted.
You are swearing loyalty to our Head of State, and thus more broadly to the State, not a man who you have to personally and humiliating genuflect to in some sort of docile submission gesture of servitude - the monarch is, in effect, a public servant who represents our State and us on our behalf. He works for us.
It's a ritual of mutual obligations, and it's your duty,
So, get over yourself, and take the pledge.
Absolute bollocks, I would not piss on the parasite if he was on fire. A lazy useless stuck up clown. A pox on the whole sorry gang of them.
Personally I would have stopped at 'Absolute bollocks', but I appreciate your sentiment @malcolmg. I'm neither pro not anti so won't go as far as you, but the idea that it is my duty IS absolute bollocks. It is a choice.
He is the Head of State, and that is not a choice.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Did you swear an oath to Queen Elizabeth? If not then you have been living your life as a traitor.
There was no public oath at the late Queens coronation in 1953, not least because my grandmother who stood to attention most of the day, being an ardent royallist, would have made everyone present to solemnly join in
As a matter of interest apart from @OldKingCole and myself, are there any other of our fellow posters able to recall the Queens coronation or are we the only ones?
Do we have to bang saucepans? I've not been keeping up.
I also see that some of us are forgetting that KCIII's namesake was done for treason against the people. It's not just one way.
In one US state the oath of office includes declaring you've never fought a duel with deadly weapons. Surprised the 2nd amendment bros have not gone after that.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
You could post more on PB? Give us your thought on aliens?
What about thoughts on Trans Woke Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs?
Only if they escaped from a lab.
Some Species like thing with a bat and a wet market?
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
No oath in the Senior Service! It was assumed that we would dedicate ourselves to sailing around the world looking for people to fight out of sheer enthusiasm.
I thought the traditional fighting motivation was rum rations.
Rum, bum and the lash according to First Lord Churchill. But the rum is no longer handed out except on coronation day, bum is a matter of taste, and lash has been outlawed for many years.
Edit: Oh, and most importantly prize money, but that ended with the all-in gratuity post-WW2 in 1945.
I seem vaguely to remember swearing an oath to perhaps it was the Queen. This has reminded me that I am now released from the obligation and can legitimately become an anarcho-nihilist.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
No oath in the Senior Service! It was assumed that we would dedicate ourselves to sailing around the world looking for people to fight out of sheer enthusiasm.
I thought the traditional fighting motivation was rum rations.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
This guy is a sitting duck. (And not just in Scotland.) He's going to break stuff, and he could well be out within a year.
"(The public will be) asked to respond: 'God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever.'
A spokesman for Lambeth Palace, the archbishop's office, said: 'The homage of the people is particularly exciting because that's brand new.'. ""
The last sentence you're swearing an impossibility. Absolutely ludicrous.
That's the oath? That doesn't really sound like an oath or a pledge of allegiance. Two thirds of it is just an abridgement of the national anthem and the third third us in there just to annoy pedants. (I agree, ludicrous.)
This guy is a sitting duck. (And not just in Scotland.) He's going to break stuff, and he could well be out within a year.
"(The public will be) asked to respond: 'God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever.'
A spokesman for Lambeth Palace, the archbishop's office, said: 'The homage of the people is particularly exciting because that's brand new.'. ""
The last sentence you're swearing an impossibility. Absolutely ludicrous.
That's the oath? That doesn't really sound like an oath or a pledge of allegiance. Two thirds of it is just an abridgement of the national anthem and the third third us in there just to annoy pedants. (I agree, ludicrous.)
Also [edit] Lambeth Palace is plain wrong. Anyone who bought property in Scotland before 1999 or so had to [edit] do feudal homage to the superior, and ultimately to the Crown, unless it had been explicitly bought out by a previous landholder.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
I was on the phone to a tory party member on Friday. Our friendship has occasionally come close to breaking but we've held on. Anyway, he really surprised me by saying he wasn't going to watch on Saturday and that he's 'rather fed up with the monarchy'. This from someone who was glued to the funeral of HMQ - because he admired and respected her. He did go on to say that he quite likes Charles.
Needless to say I shall be swearing an oath of allegiance. My views are well known, acerbic, and there's no need to repeat them.
It is possible the whole circus around Harry, Meghan and their real or imagined feuds with Charles and William has induced monarchy-fatigue. Constantly changing their titles doesn't help. Is it just me who has to stop and think who is meant by the Duke of Edinburgh or Prince of Wales, let alone whether Harry or Edward is Sussex or Wessex?
This guy is a sitting duck. (And not just in Scotland.) He's going to break stuff, and he could well be out within a year.
"(The public will be) asked to respond: 'God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever.'
A spokesman for Lambeth Palace, the archbishop's office, said: 'The homage of the people is particularly exciting because that's brand new.'. ""
Is that where it came from ? “Particularly exciting”…
… "Our hope is at that point, when the Archbishop invites people to join in, that people wherever they are, if they're watching at home on their own, watching the telly, will say it out loud - this sense of a great cry around the nation and around the world of support for the King."…
Presumably the Ukrainian govt will reimburse us for these ?
Why should it?
It is completely wrong to shaft people financially while they are fighting for freedom - ours as well as theirs.
And this is one type of aid which is pretty unlikely to be lost in corruption, I'd guess.
The free advertising of British weapons shitting on Russian (and Russian inspired) weapons is probably worth billions in the international arms market.
Everyone wants NLAW etc. now….
The interesting thing about NLAW versus Javelin is that they appear to be complementary, rather than competitor, systems. NLAW is shorter range, more luggable, one-use, and much cheaper; whilst Javelin is much longer range, reloadable, heavier and can be reloaded.
I have just this hour finished a project which I have been contemplating for two-three years, thinking deeply and researching about for 18 months, and working hard on for 10 months. And absolutely incessantly toiling over for 3 months, with every available hour
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
I was on the phone to a tory party member on Friday. Our friendship has occasionally come close to breaking but we've held on. Anyway, he really surprised me by saying he wasn't going to watch on Saturday and that he's 'rather fed up with the monarchy'. This from someone who was glued to the funeral of HMQ - because he admired and respected her. He did go on to say that he quite likes Charles.
Needless to say I shall be swearing an oath of allegiance. My views are well known, acerbic, and there's no need to repeat them.
It is possible the whole circus around Harry, Meghan and their real or imagined feuds with Charles and William has induced monarchy-fatigue. Constantly changing their titles doesn't help. Is it just me who has to stop and think who is meant by the Duke of Edinburgh or Prince of Wales, let alone whether Harry or Edward is Sussex or Wessex?
I think that’s somewhat inevitable with a change in the monarch. I agree it has been somewhat relentless of late. After the coronation it is probably due a quiet few years (though the tabloids will still bang on about Harry).
Edit: also entirely possible that the next royalty-related bank holiday will be KCIII’s funeral which goes to show there’s not quite so much in the pipeline coming up now. Williams children are still young and the next reign is (probably) around a decade off at the earliest.
This guy is a sitting duck. (And not just in Scotland.) He's going to break stuff, and he could well be out within a year.
"(The public will be) asked to respond: 'God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever.'
A spokesman for Lambeth Palace, the archbishop's office, said: 'The homage of the people is particularly exciting because that's brand new.'. ""
The last sentence you're swearing an impossibility. Absolutely ludicrous.
That's the oath? That doesn't really sound like an oath or a pledge of allegiance. Two thirds of it is just an abridgement of the national anthem and the third third us in there just to annoy pedants. (I agree, ludicrous.)
No - that is not the oath
The order of service will read:
"All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together: I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."
Comments
Otherwise, you are looking at 1923.
In support of my view, somebody (thanks whoever) helpfully posted this video of him yesterday. Absolutely cringeworthy and toe-curlingly embarrassing. And who on earth thought it was a good idea for him to do this from an opulent state room rather than from, say, the side of a football field?
https://twitter.com/Matt_VickersMP/status/1652223631634714627?cxt=HHwWhsC-0fOo8O0tAAAA
Hope you’re all well up,there.
https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1652595473067245568?s=61&t=s0ae0IFncdLS1Dc7J0P_TQ
A lot of piss ants will lose the ant hills they piss from.
In the case of the DVLA, you would probably end up with a head count of 25% of current. Though the remaining staff would be higher paid and skilled.
Your classic of fewer, but better jobs.
Herrenknecht AG, typically.
I don't know an awful lot about the 1987 election. Was there a similar 'deal' between Steele/Owen as there had been between Steele/Hattersley over who would be PM if the Alliance won? Or had reality checked back in and they knew it wasn't going to happen?
From the little I know about David Owen I can't imagine he would have easily accepted a junior role to anyone else.
So, if you're not swearing allegiance, it's effectively treason.
Apart from that absolutely nothing. No posters, flyers, knocks on the door, nothing.
We have actually seen more activity from the Parish council trying to find new people to stand as councillors than we have from the local elections.
He has less democratic legitimacy than Ursula von der Leyen.
Actually the idea of the oath is a huge misstep. I like Charles but how gauche and archaic to have an actual oath. It just brings into stark relief the absurdity of the monarchy.
In 6 months? Having taken over from a PM who lurched towards financial crisis?
The monarch is the Head of State, politically neutral, and a public servant.
You should wish him well in his role, and take the oath.
Very odd feeling. A mixture of deep satisfaction but also a certain emptiness. What now?
That’s a blow for the theory of nominative determinism. Richard Sharp was terribly dim when it came to realising that he could not possibly continue as chair of the BBC.
Mr Sharp’s involvement in the rackety personal finances of the former prime minister only came to light as the result of investigatory journalism. Absent that, it might very well have remained concealed that he was a go-between in the arrangement of an £800,000 loan guarantee to the prime minister who promoted him for the key post at the BBC. Neither of the inquiries into this affair were instigated by the government.
He joins the very long list of people who wandered recklessly close to the ethical black hole that is Mr Johnson and became consumed by it. I can’t say that it has done reputational damage to Mr Johnson himself because the disgraced former prime minister had no respect left to lose.
We don’t just need a new chair for the BBC, we need cleaner thinking about its relationship with government. On Labour’s part, Ms Powell has set up a comprehensive review of the governance of the broadcaster. Her stated purpose is to find ways in which to strengthen the corporation. I am going to suggest a step that some in her party will be reluctant to take, because it is not just Tories who like to exploit the patronage powers of office. It would be to his credit, and possibly also to his advantage, if Sir Keir Starmer were to demonstrate his commitment to BBC independence by pledging that a government led by him will not seek to install any Labour partisans at the broadcaster.
The Monarch represents the State in a way an elected politician could never do. And in spite of the whining of a tiny number of sad republican loons like you they do it very well.
Apparently Musky-baby's been talking about the SuperHeavy launch the other day. Here are some takeaways:
*) Three engines did not start properly. The rocket has a thrust margin of three engines.
*) At T+27, SpaceX lost comms with the rocket (JJ - I'm guessing temporarily)
*) Some kind of explosion happened to knock out the heat shields of engines 17, 18, 19, or 20
*) SpaceX does not "see evidence that the rock tornado actually damaged engines or heat shields in a material way.
*) Raptor production has slowed down because they've got loads of unused engines.
*) It seems like the power slide on lift-off was unplanned and uncontrolled, and could easily have gone into the tower.
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1652451971410935808
https://tlpnetwork.com/news/2023/04/starship-ift-postlaunch-update
Some Christians will argue that fellow believers should be baptized as adults, and I suppose, as a parallel, you could make a case for requiring everyone to make an oath of allegiance to the monarch, after their 18th birthday, as a pre-requisite to exercising the rights and responsibilities of citizenship, such as voting.
I'm not sure I'd necessarily make that argument, but the response of some on here to bring given the option to give an oath of allegiance does seem a bit prissy when compared to the absolute requirement to do so for immigrant citizens.
Ground launch has been tested during development, IIRC.
The monarch governs according to the constitution and convention, and thus is a figure of unity.
Electing gains nothing except the potential for more politically division, and loses nearly 1,500 years of history.
BBC: "Coronation: Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles".
This guy is a sitting duck. (And not just in Scotland.) He's going to break stuff, and he could well be out within a year.
"(The public will be) asked to respond: 'God save King Charles. Long live King Charles. May the King live forever.'
A spokesman for Lambeth Palace, the archbishop's office, said: 'The homage of the people is particularly exciting because that's brand new.'. ""
“I (name) having applied to the Minister for Justice for a certificate of naturalisation, hereby solemnly declare my fidelity to the Irish nation and my loyalty to the State.
I undertake to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect its democratic values.”
https://www.irishimmigration.ie/how-to-become-a-citizen/citizenship-ceremonies/
Or he's taking the piss, too.
The whole loyalty oath business is, after all, rather a good joke.
It's not an easy one. It's far more important he has us rooting for him to unite the country and Commonwealth, represent us and our values, and so I am burying any reservations I have and taking a bigger view.
It won't help for me to fold my arms and abstain from it. And I quite like the idea of taking an oath anyway and being involved.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1652503471625580544
also this - 'It's great the cable networks are here tonight ... Fox News, owned by Dominion Voting Systems ... I'd call Fox honest fair and truthful. But then I could be sued for defamation."'
In practise, of course I'm not going to be swearing allegiance to that effete buffoon.
The "politician" argument is ridiculous. Nobody's saying vote for a republic because of who the president will or won't or should or shouldn't be. Using the Commons Speaker would be fine. If you don't like that, then choose someone at random.
Do you support not having a written constitution, unlike every other state in Europe and Asia?
The other thing missing from the the above is that the set of engines on B7 were not uniform and required individual startup sequences.
Not seen much reported on Humza in the last few weeks, I was beginning to worry
Absolutely ludicrous.
So, the UK Army specified a set of systems -
1) That worked
2) That worked in the manner intended
3) That cost something like the original planned cost
4) That didn't involve a special UK variant in Imperial measure or something similarly stupid.
I think a Judge led enquiry into the complete failure of this program to achieve the normal goals of a MOD program is vital.
Needless to say I shall be swearing an oath of allegiance. My views are well known, acerbic, and there's no need to repeat them.
That's not been confirmed, and AFAIAA wasn't said by Musk. And even if it is correct, it's also unclear whether the hydraulic system was the cause of the explosion or a symptom.
It's fairly clear that the Raptor engines are not up to the task atm. I know you want them to be (and so do I), but wish-crafting excuses such as concrete debris isn't looking at it the reality. Three did not properly start up; and others fragged themselves as the vehicle ascended.
Worse, any changes required on the raptors would need to be done to all the ones they've already made and are in store.
As a matter of interest apart from @OldKingCole and myself, are there any other of our fellow posters able to recall the Queens coronation or are we the only ones?
EDIT: IIRC it is quite a high pressure system, which is needed to move the grid fins on descent. Which are huge - 5m or so long. Hence the move to electrics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-65439967
Probably smart politics.
TOP Scottish historian Sir Tom Devine has claimed that the cause of Scottish independence is “virtually dead for at least a generation”.
In comments published by the BBC, the emeritus professor at Edinburgh University stated that: "Given recent events, I would honestly have to say that the cause of independence is virtually dead for at least a generation."
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23490282.tom-devine-independence-dead-generation-amid-snp-turmoil/
I'm very bearish on SH/SS. I so want it to succeed quickly, but I see little indication that it's going to.
Since David Cameron the tories have given us:
1 x Incompetent and dud performer
1 x Incompetent, immoral, but brilliant performer
1 x Incompetent, loopy, and appalling performer
1 x Competent but dud performer
I think Starmer will out-perform Sunak in the GE campaign which, if that's right, shows you just awful Sunak will be.
I also see that some of us are forgetting that KCIII's namesake was done for treason against the people. It's not just one way.
Edit: Oh, and most importantly prize money, but that ended with the all-in gratuity post-WW2 in 1945.
He’s got a decent speech writer or two,
“Particularly exciting”…
… "Our hope is at that point, when the Archbishop invites people to join in, that people wherever they are, if they're watching at home on their own, watching the telly, will say it out loud - this sense of a great cry around the nation and around the world of support for the King."…
Mental.
Edit: also entirely possible that the next royalty-related bank holiday will be KCIII’s funeral which goes to show there’s not quite so much in the pipeline coming up now. Williams children are still young and the next reign is (probably) around a decade off at the earliest.
The order of service will read:
"All who so desire, in the Abbey, and elsewhere, say together: I swear that I will pay true allegiance to Your Majesty, and to your heirs and successors according to law. So help me God."