"BABYLON 5 ANIMATED MOVIE coming from Warner Bros. Animation & WB Home Entertainment! Classic B5: raucous, heartfelt, nonstop, a ton of fun through time and space & a love letter to the fans. Movie title, release date and other details coming one week from today. "
"I'm ridiculously excited about the #B5AnimatedMovie because it feels the most B5-ish of anything we've done since the original show. Warners was terrific in giving me the freedom to write the story I wanted, and the animation is phenomenal. It's fun, deep, emotional, classic B5."
Some people were criticising Rallings and Thrasher / Sky News for saying that Labour needed a 10% lead in the local elections to be heading for a good general election result.
I've bought quite a few coronation memorabilia today.
These will be worth a few bob in a few years as it becomes inevitable to be all that this is the last coronation.
Sorry, but with so much tat having been produced there will be no scarcity and thus no value in your investment. It's like when they produced loads of new No.1 comic editions and were stunned they were not as valuable as super rare editions from the 40s.
I assume most of it is made cheaply in China as well, so it probably has no quality aspect.
My parents have in their dining room, a Queen Victoria 1887 golden jubilee glass plate. I was sure it was worth something, but it turns out they go for a tenner on eBay, as there were millions of them!
“Canadians are very much split on their opinions when it comes to the monarchy in Canada. Roughly half (54%) agree (20% strongly/33% somewhat) that now that Queen Elizabeth II’s reign has ended, Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy. This sentiment is down 5 points from 2021, but up from 44% in 2011. Conversely, 46% disagree (19% strongly/27% somewhat) that Canada should sever ties, up 5 points.”
Only 20% are strong republicans (bet they’re mostly in Quebec). You need way more than that to go through the enormous arse-ache of massive constitutional turmoil. It’s not gonna happen. Canada is a safe, stable, prosperous country, looked on with envy by many. Why change what works?
Also, the monarchy sets Canada apart from the USA and, in my experience, Canadians love ANYTHING that does that
There are some odd parts in that piece. The economy not being in a great position and thus 'no reason to celebrate' seems to be included for no reason other than to put in an anti-Brexit point, since I cannot really see what a new Head of State coming in has to do with that - should a president not be inaugurated because an economy is bad? It then trots out tired old cliches about not understanding our place in the world as a reason for Brexit happening, which rather sets the scene that we're not in for any stunning insight here, and ultimately it ends with an appeal that getting back in the EU is a political necessity, so it does feel as though the author wanted to talk about something other than monarchy despite the many words on that topic.
But this bit is weirdest for me. You might think you live in a time of truth and reconciliation, or perhaps even, if you’re feeling optimistic, progress. But this week if you’re British or a member of the 56 sovereign states that still, somehow, find themselves in the Commonwealth, you’re waking up in a country where a priest is going to smear oil – vegan oil from Jerusalem – on a rather pinkish, rather broad forehead to signify one man’s status as the Lord’s anointed.
I know Charles is Head of the Commonwealth too, but most of the members of it are Republics and its membership has been growing, not declining, as even places not initially in the Empire joined it, so clearly are not that directly associated with the crown despite Charles being nominally Head. So it reads like some kind of slam against the Commonwealth for no real reason. It has no real purpose, yet is still going - why is that something to be so angry about?
Especially considering the final point concludes on the essential success of constitutional monarchy working despite being nonsensical, of the danger of taking one's country too seriously.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
Tucker Carlson January 7, 2021 — 04:18:04 PM UTC A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?
SSI - Am wondering, what is this Fucker's PB moniker?
Is that real and is he still employed. It's not written by a malfunctioning AI is it?
"A text message sent by Tucker Carlson that set off a panic at the highest levels of Fox on the eve of its billion-dollar defamation trial showed its most popular host sharing his private, inflammatory views about violence and race.
The discovery of the message contributed to a chain of events that ultimately led to Mr. Carlson’s firing. . . ."
He'll be rehired and on a higher salary
No chance. He’ll either get hired by one of the new media companies such as Rumble, Spotify, The Blaze, Daily Wire etc, or he’ll launch his own new media company. It’s a massive business these days, and he will likely end up making at least double his reported $35m Fox News salary.
We shall see. Remember Glenn Beck? And Bill O'Reilly? Few do anymore!
Back is with The Blaze, and Megyn Kelly is with SiriusXM. They’re both still making fortunes. Bill O’R has now retired IIRC.
Can you quantify "fortunes"? As for public impact, compared to their salad days, not so much . . .
Glenn Beck is making more now working for himself, than he ever made working for anyone else. You’re right about the public impact mostly being with the more mainstream channels, but the likes of Glenn Beck and Ben Shapiro each have close to a million people paying their companies ten bucks a month.
Source(s)? And are you arguing that Glenn Beck is MORE influential now that formerly?
Personally do NOT care a red cent about his (or others) bank balance, which seems to be your (and Ab's) focus.
I’m saying he’s making massive bank, even if he doesn’t have the status in mainstream commentary that he once enjoyed.
Unless you are managing Beck's investment portfolio, why should you - give a rat's bippy about that?
And how do you know he's rolling in the dough, as you keep saying?
He’s a major shareholder in Blaze Media, has gone from being the on-screen talent to being the executive behind the company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaze_Media
Saw squat about BM's financial status - did I miss that?
If it's OK to elect our local Councillors, why isn't it OK to elect our Head of State?
Pedant's note - At the most local level, the parish, we don't elect most of our local councillors - the majority are take up office without an election because not enough people put themselves forwards. So we have the right but don't exercise it.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
The drone attempt was most likely a false flag attack IMO.
They certainly have form, but then again it makes them look pretty weak. What do they get in return from faking it? Does it enable some form of escalation that was not already on the table?
It’s for domestic propoganda, a way of saying that Russia itself is under attack. Also likely a cover for operations against Kiev more directly, and a way of getting the forthcoming Ukranian offensive off the Russian news.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
Rituals, whether invented from nothing or based on something historical, make things more interesting.
Even little old clubs or large companies have some level of ritual or internal culture, some of which may not make any actual sense but are just done because that is what is done (or what people believe is done).
This does feel a bit like some of the disingenous 'I don't get why people feel sad about the Queen dying, she was old and it's not like people had met her personally ' style comments from 'edgy' people online - as though people could not possibly understand others feeling something about a famous person, despite a million examples of things like people going 'That's so sad' when an actor or musician they admire dies, which is the same thing.
I've bought quite a few coronation memorabilia today.
These will be worth a few bob in a few years as it becomes inevitable to be all that this is the last coronation.
Sorry, but with so much tat having been produced there will be no scarcity and thus no value in your investment. It's like when they produced loads of new No.1 comic editions and were stunned they were not as valuable as super rare editions from the 40s.
I assume most of it is made cheaply in China as well, so it probably has no quality aspect.
My parents have in their dining room, a Queen Victoria 1887 golden jubilee glass plate. I was sure it was worth something, but it turns out they go for a tenner on eBay, as there were millions of them!
Never heard of him, but I like his attitude of "Look, it's weird, but why turn down an invite?".
Nick Cave has denied being a monarchist or a royalist after it was revealed he is attending the coronation of King Charles III, saying he “hold[s] an inexplicable emotional attachment to the royals”.
Writing in his newsletter the Red Hand Files, in reply to letters from three Australians and one Brit – some incredulous at the news he would be attending the coronation as part of the Australian delegation – Cave described himself as “not a monarchist, nor am I a royalist, nor am I an ardent republican for that matter”.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
I suppose the technical reason is that he is being crowned as King of the UK, not the Kingdoms of Scotland and then England. Having two coronations wouldn't really work.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
Apathy should sustain the monarchy in many (though not all) places for some time as its not worth the political capital to change. It's a long term threat, to be sure, and one they should be concerned about, but it's not imminent.
Look at Jamaica - political consensus on removing the monarchy for decades, and public support for it, yet as of today they still haven't done it. It's not simply about waiting for the Queen to die, plenty of places went republican during her reign (most recently the Bahamas).
I'm sure they'll get to it soon now (the wikipedia page says they now want to hold a referendum - I think they require one, unlike a simple legislative vote in some places - by 2025 to coincide with a general election) but the delay will still equal almost 20 years from when there were firm statements made that it would happen swiftly.
And you can bet some people will still be talking about what a shock and hammer blow it will be to Charles when it happens.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
The vote to retain the Union Jack-y Kiwi flag was surprisingly emphatic. I just googled: the old flag won by 57/43 pretty much. Māoris in particular favoured the old UK flag. Who knew
They did have some rocking suggestions for a new flag. Look at this! BASED
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
The vote to retain the Union Jack-y Kiwi flag was surprisingly emphatic. I just googled: the old flag won by 57/43 pretty much. Māoris in particular favoured the old UK flag. Who knew
They did have some rocking suggestions for a new flag. Look at this! BASED
I actually quite liked the version that went up against the current flag - colours of the old retained, along with the star element, but with a recognised additional symbol of NZ. Edit - turns out the final runoff version was actually the black and blue version.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I like how they got some scientists in just to check if it really was limestone from the Middle East, or a meteorite or something.
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
A late Savanta, with another due later today I guess.
Labour’s polling decline really does seem to have decoupled from the now-over Tory rise - which suggests there’s an issue with Labour itself, rather than the Tories just getting their act (a little bit) together.
The decline in Tory support (and Sunak’s ratings), to form such a beautifully formed boob only began after the fieldwork for this poll. Beautifully formed boob actually means you are going down, so is not a good thing. Confident smile is the best thing of all to see.
I am hugely confident subsequent poll from this company will show conservatives back in the twenties with Labour seventeen ahead.
To answer your question, many recent polls have shown with some increases for Labour, so keep a peeper on that part of the graph. But with Libdems the main winners in recent polling, greens up too, a moving around of the LLG deckchairs during campaigning is to be expected - when the Truss Debacle happened Labour shot up with Lib Dem’s and greens down, not just Truss Tories, greedy Labour were always going to belch some of that Lib Dem and green back out during this locals campaign.
Why didn’t I simply type, nothing remarkable to see here move along now
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
The vote to retain the Union Jack-y Kiwi flag was surprisingly emphatic. I just googled: the old flag won by 57/43 pretty much. Māoris in particular favoured the old UK flag. Who knew
They did have some rocking suggestions for a new flag. Look at this! BASED
I actually quite liked the version that went up against the current flag - colours of the old retained, along with the star element, but with a recognised additional symbol of NZ. Edit - turns out the final runoff version was actually the black and blue version.
Yes that’s quite nice too. Honours the Union Jack in its colors, as you say. Tho I prefer the piratical black flag
Either way kiwis really weren’t keen. 57/43 is a solid defeat
NZ is very Woke and I imagine for a lot of conservative Kiwis this was an easy quiet way to say Fuck You to the lefty elite
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I like how they got some scientists in just to check if it really was limestone from the Middle East, or a meteorite or something.
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
I was always told (by locals) that it was from a quarry near the Annaty Burn, likely where Quarrymill Park is now.
In terms of the council elections I expect the big story to be Lib Dem gains in the so called Blue Wall . Greens to do well and the Tories regardless of their desperate spin to do poorly . Labour to do okay but nothing earth shattering.
The reverse, I expect the LD advance to fall flat in the blue wall, indeed on current polls the Tories under Rishi are making net gains from the LDs relative to 2019 and the LDs are also leaking heavily to Labour. Labour however I expect to make significant gains from the Tories, especially in the redwall and Leave areas relative to 2019
I expect a PNE of Labour 40% Con 23% Lib Dem 17% and Tory losses of 814.
The Lib Dem’s are not leaking heavily to Labour, in National polls they are going up, almost a surge, and this is at Labours expense, and in the locals the Lib Dem share and seats will be boosted by Labour votes.
I’ve got a busy couple of days, but will be back Thursday and Friday for the result and how my prediction is holding up.
No way will the Tories fall as low as 23%, especially as RefUK aren't standing in most council wards.
The latest Yougov has the LDs losing 37% of their 2019 voters to Starmer Labour and 9% of their 2019 voters to Sunak's Tories.
“No way will the Tories fall as low as 23%” Why not? Unprecedented cost of living crisis, unprecedented 3rd PM in same parliament, why not unprecedented outcome in local polls due to hard to get your vote out? Maybe you are counting on too many reform voters to make the effort to vote Tory this week? My prediction is 23% Tory PNE not on great switching to other parties, but unenthusiastic Tory voters this week.
If a Tory supporter was predicting 23% I might take it seriously, but it's too convenient for non-Tories to be forecasting such a low number for them. But I'll acknowledge my mistake if they do get 23% on Friday.
With a pollster backing me up, maybe my predictions not so way out after all.
Donald Trump has condemned the former first minister Nicola Sturgeon as a “negative force” who “hurt Scotland”.
The former US president attacked the former SNP leader as he visited his golf resort Trump Turnberry in South Ayrshire on the third day of his trip to Scotland.
He said: “Nicola Sturgeon has not been very nice to me. She never liked what we did for Scotland. My mother was Scottish. The people of Scotland are very proud of what I did for Scotland.
“I think she [Sturgeon] was anti-business. She is a negative force.”
Trump said Sturgeon “has been a very successful politician” but her resignation as first minister was a “good change for Scotland”.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
Apathy should sustain the monarchy in many (though not all) places for some time as its not worth the political capital to change. It's a long term threat, to be sure, and one they should be concerned about, but it's not imminent.
Look at Jamaica - political consensus on removing the monarchy for decades, and public support for it, yet as of today they still haven't done it. It's not simply about waiting for the Queen to die, plenty of places went republican during her reign (most recently the Bahamas).
I'm sure they'll get to it soon now (the wikipedia page says they now want to hold a referendum - I think they require one, unlike a simple legislative vote in some places - by 2025 to coincide with a general election) but the delay will still equal almost 20 years from when there were firm statements made that it would happen swiftly.
And you can bet some people will still be talking about what a shock and hammer blow it will be to Charles when it happens.
I think you mean Barbados. And that was a bit dodgy. They had no referendum, and polls were sketchy and contradictory. Some showed majority support for retaining the monarchy
Politicians in monarchies will often be republican because it means more money, prestige and power for THEM
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I like how they got some scientists in just to check if it really was limestone from the Middle East, or a meteorite or something.
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
I was always told (by locals) that it was from a quarry near the Annaty Burn, likely where Quarrymill Park is now.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
Apathy should sustain the monarchy in many (though not all) places for some time as its not worth the political capital to change. It's a long term threat, to be sure, and one they should be concerned about, but it's not imminent.
Look at Jamaica - political consensus on removing the monarchy for decades, and public support for it, yet as of today they still haven't done it. It's not simply about waiting for the Queen to die, plenty of places went republican during her reign (most recently the Bahamas).
I'm sure they'll get to it soon now (the wikipedia page says they now want to hold a referendum - I think they require one, unlike a simple legislative vote in some places - by 2025 to coincide with a general election) but the delay will still equal almost 20 years from when there were firm statements made that it would happen swiftly.
And you can bet some people will still be talking about what a shock and hammer blow it will be to Charles when it happens.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I like how they got some scientists in just to check if it really was limestone from the Middle East, or a meteorite or something.
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
I was always told (by locals) that it was from a quarry near the Annaty Burn, likely where Quarrymill Park is now.
It surely cannot be the original.
The original…. What?!
The Stone of Destiny. You said ritual and mystery - the Stone of Destiny. What Chas is using is only a mystery in where it came from and why it isn't the actual stone.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
It is, of course, a whole lot more complicated than deciding what kind of President you want instead. The Crown is the lynchpin of our entire rickety unwritten constitution, and even if both Houses of Parliament decided that they wanted to bring in some elected or appointed figurehead with powers mirroring that of the monarch, the King cannot simply be replaced by sleight of hand. The abolition of the monarchy would be a revolution, and would necessitate the drafting of a basic law or constitution to put the replacement system on a sound legal footing.
One can only imagine the kind of argument there would be over what rights and mechanisms should be codified in such a document, to say nothing of the likely need to put the outcome to a referendum and obtain majorities for it in all four constituent parts of the UK. It's an immense undertaking and would make the entire Brexit shitstorm pale by comparison.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I like how they got some scientists in just to check if it really was limestone from the Middle East, or a meteorite or something.
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
I was always told (by locals) that it was from a quarry near the Annaty Burn, likely where Quarrymill Park is now.
It surely cannot be the original.
The original…. What?!
The original Celtic "Stone of Destiny". I'd expect a decent piece of polished black basalt at least.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
Apathy should sustain the monarchy in many (though not all) places for some time as its not worth the political capital to change. It's a long term threat, to be sure, and one they should be concerned about, but it's not imminent.
Look at Jamaica - political consensus on removing the monarchy for decades, and public support for it, yet as of today they still haven't done it. It's not simply about waiting for the Queen to die, plenty of places went republican during her reign (most recently the Bahamas).
I'm sure they'll get to it soon now (the wikipedia page says they now want to hold a referendum - I think they require one, unlike a simple legislative vote in some places - by 2025 to coincide with a general election) but the delay will still equal almost 20 years from when there were firm statements made that it would happen swiftly.
And you can bet some people will still be talking about what a shock and hammer blow it will be to Charles when it happens.
I think you mean Barbados. And that was a bit dodgy. They had no referendum, and polls were sketchy and contradictory. Some showed majority support for retaining the monarchy
Politicians in monarchies will often be republican because it means more money, prestige and power for THEM
A majority of the Commonwealth nations are republics.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I like how they got some scientists in just to check if it really was limestone from the Middle East, or a meteorite or something.
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
I was always told (by locals) that it was from a quarry near the Annaty Burn, likely where Quarrymill Park is now.
It surely cannot be the original.
The original…. What?!
The original Celtic "Stone of Destiny". I'd expect a decent piece of polished black basalt at least.
I like my destiny stones to be sacrificial - I want rivulets of stained blood on it.
The Lib Dems often act as a think tank for future Labour (and occasionally Tory) policies, so look out for the 24 hour booking line appearing in Labour pledges soon:
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I like how they got some scientists in just to check if it really was limestone from the Middle East, or a meteorite or something.
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
I was always told (by locals) that it was from a quarry near the Annaty Burn, likely where Quarrymill Park is now.
It surely cannot be the original.
The original…. What?!
The original Celtic "Stone of Destiny". I'd expect a decent piece of polished black basalt at least.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The Coronation is going to be a huge success, because Britons want it to be a huge success; it's hugely fun, unifying, uplifting, stunning, awe-inspiring and uniquely British.
Lots of small r republicans will both watch it (and enjoy it) too, including plenty on here.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
This one IS mystery - we don't know where the original stone came from or why it was used or where it went.
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
I like how they got some scientists in just to check if it really was limestone from the Middle East, or a meteorite or something.
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
I was always told (by locals) that it was from a quarry near the Annaty Burn, likely where Quarrymill Park is now.
It surely cannot be the original.
The original…. What?!
The original Celtic "Stone of Destiny". I'd expect a decent piece of polished black basalt at least.
A rock from Iona would do.
Ha, yes, it would. Something really ancient from the Lewisian.
Golly Gosh, the excitement is mounting isn’t it, not long to go. I have done the Coronation Quiche twice now, came out my oven different both times, the first one probably better than the second. I’ll make a few for Sunday’s Coronation flat party round ours so if one don’t look right I can hide it.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
Not just wanting a change, but wanting a specific change. The monarchy can’t be abolished, without a consensus on what will replace it.
As the Aussies discovered. There was a majority for a republic, yet no majority for any single specific kind of republic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
The vote to retain the Union Jack-y Kiwi flag was surprisingly emphatic. I just googled: the old flag won by 57/43 pretty much. Māoris in particular favoured the old UK flag. Who knew
They did have some rocking suggestions for a new flag. Look at this! BASED
I actually quite liked the version that went up against the current flag - colours of the old retained, along with the star element, but with a recognised additional symbol of NZ. Edit - turns out the final runoff version was actually the black and blue version.
The version you liked was my favourite too, for similar reasons.
The Lib Dems often act as a think tank for future Labour (and occasionally Tory) policies, so look out for the 24 hour booking line appearing in Labour pledges soon:
Will a legal right to see a GP in a week help if we don't have the capability to deliver it?
It’s like a Rishi pledge. Focus groups well but no chance of it actually happening.
My local GP surgery makes it as hard as possible to see them so people give up.
Stopped e-consult and only the 8am rush available now, which is like trying to buy tickets to Glastonbury when they go on sale. Every day.
Mine is the same. And if you do get a phone appointment it's not at a specific (or even general) time. Just 'hang about all day with your phone within 5 seconds of answering reach or else'. And the number that shows up doesn't let you call back. Almost ideal from a bureaucrats mind I suspect.
The Lib Dems often act as a think tank for future Labour (and occasionally Tory) policies, so look out for the 24 hour booking line appearing in Labour pledges soon:
Will a legal right to see a GP in a week help if we don't have the capability to deliver it?
It’s like a Rishi pledge. Focus groups well but no chance of it actually happening.
My local GP surgery makes it as hard as possible to see them so people give up.
Stopped e-consult and only the 8am rush available now, which is like trying to buy tickets to Glastonbury when they go on sale. Every day.
Mine is the same. And if you do get a phone appointment it's not at a specific (or even general) time. Just 'hang about all day with your phone within 5 seconds of answering reach or else'. And the number that shows up doesn't let you call back. Almost ideal from a bureaucrats mind I suspect.
Private GPs then become the only serious option for those who work, at £200 a pop of course.
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
I suppose the technical reason is that he is being crowned as King of the UK, not the Kingdoms of Scotland and then England. Having two coronations wouldn't really work.
The possibility of two bank holidays though - I'd vote for it.
Anyone know where you can get one of these SKS houses where the average deposit is £9,000
I might get a couple of dozen
Or is it another SKS lie?
Far more importantly, has the Labour Party given any indication as to how it intends to go about getting truly vast numbers of new homes built? We're several million short of our existing needs, and both net immigration and natural growth will continue to add to the population on top of that.
Are they prepared to go to war with the nation's entire serried ranks of Nimbies, to stop them from bogging down virtually every attempt at development through planning objections - and find enough extra money in taxes to get most of the homes and all of the associated infrastructure built (because the housebuilders aren't going to ruin their profit margins by flooding the country with product out of the goodness of their flinty little hearts?) Not convinced.
Anyone know where you can get one of these SKS houses where the average deposit is £9,000
I might get a couple of dozen
Or is it another SKS lie?
Far more importantly, has the Labour Party given any indication as to how it intends to go about getting truly vast numbers of new homes built? We're several million short of our existing needs, and both net immigration and natural growth will continue to add to the population on top of that.
Are they prepared to go to war with the nation's entire serried ranks of Nimbies, to stop them from bogging down virtually every attempt at development through planning objections - and find enough extra money in taxes to get most of the homes and all of the associated infrastructure built (because the housebuilders aren't going to ruin their profit margins by flooding the country with product out of the goodness of their flinty little hearts?) Not convinced.
There is some news on this, although obviously also a lot of misinterpretation. Labour are saying that they are going to deliver the housing by restarting a tweaked version of the current system which has slowed down due to uncertainty over how committed the government are to it. The reality is that it will upset a whole load of people like HYUFD, but they are largely in constituencies that don't vote labour anyway.
In my usual Wednesday evening pub sat pleasantly between the gentrified and not-gentrified bits of inner Manchester. Neither Ancoats nor Collyhurst strike me as obvious beds of royalism. Yet this pub is absolutely decorated to the nines with red, white and blue. It's obviously not in itself a declaration of fealty, but at the same time is a lot more enthusiastically pro-monarchy than I had expected. And in my local suburban centre all the shops are displaying flags. And I will be going to a street party on Saturday afternoon, because my wife thinks we ought to do something to mark the occasion and because the street in question closes itself off for a party at the drop of a hat. Greater Manchester is being a lot more enthusiastic about Chazcon than I expected. It's almost as enthusiastic as it was about Platty Jubes. That's not to say we're enthusiastic about him or his stupid oath. But this is not an institutiom which popular anger is bubbling over about. I was fairly sure, last September, that the current monarch would be the last. But I'm not now. If he is, it will be because he's fucked it up himself, not because the British were unwilling to give him a go.
The monarchy will be here in 100 years
People still support it by 2 to 1
To get massive constitutional change you generally need the opposite, people wanting that change by 2 to 1
The English have had a monarchy since the late 6th century AD. The idea it’s gonna suddenly disappear coz we’ve got a quirky, elderly, slightly annoying new king with sausage fingers is adolescently absurd. Juvenile fantasy. Indeed I suggest the coming turbulence from AI (and much else) will make people cling to this symbol of stability
I don't get why we sent the Stone down to Westminster Abbey. Why does he need to sit on a thousand year old stone anyway? And if h does, get his arse up to Edinburgh to do it.
The whole point of it is mystical ritual. You either have it or you don’t. Otherwise Chas might as well be offered the job in a portakabin in Newent, but then what’s the point in having a king?!
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
He’d not be King of Scotland were he not to be coronated atop the Stone.
(Yes, it’s silly, but the monarchy is inherently silly)
"BABYLON 5 ANIMATED MOVIE coming from Warner Bros. Animation & WB Home Entertainment! Classic B5: raucous, heartfelt, nonstop, a ton of fun through time and space & a love letter to the fans. Movie title, release date and other details coming one week from today. "
"I'm ridiculously excited about the #B5AnimatedMovie because it feels the most B5-ish of anything we've done since the original show. Warners was terrific in giving me the freedom to write the story I wanted, and the animation is phenomenal. It's fun, deep, emotional, classic B5."
Comments
If it's OK to elect our local Councillors, why isn't it OK to elect our Head of State?
"I'm ridiculously excited about the #B5AnimatedMovie because it feels the most B5-ish of anything we've done since the original show. Warners was terrific in giving me the freedom to write the story I wanted, and the animation is phenomenal. It's fun, deep, emotional, classic B5."
https://twitter.com/straczynski/status/1653799076641779712
Canucks are split on the monarchy
https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/canadians-conflicted-on-future-role-of-monarchy
“Canadians are very much split on their opinions when it comes to the monarchy in Canada. Roughly half (54%) agree (20% strongly/33% somewhat) that now that Queen Elizabeth II’s reign has ended, Canada should end its formal ties to the British monarchy. This sentiment is down 5 points from 2021, but up from 44% in 2011. Conversely, 46% disagree (19% strongly/27% somewhat) that Canada should sever ties, up 5 points.”
Only 20% are strong republicans (bet they’re mostly in Quebec). You need way more than that to go through the enormous arse-ache of massive constitutional turmoil. It’s not gonna happen. Canada is a safe, stable, prosperous country, looked on with envy by many. Why change what works?
Also, the monarchy sets Canada apart from the USA and, in my experience, Canadians love ANYTHING that does that
But this bit is weirdest for me.
You might think you live in a time of truth and reconciliation, or perhaps even, if you’re feeling optimistic, progress. But this week if you’re British or a member of the 56 sovereign states that still, somehow, find themselves in the Commonwealth, you’re waking up in a country where a priest is going to smear oil – vegan oil from Jerusalem – on a rather pinkish, rather broad forehead to signify one man’s status as the Lord’s anointed.
I know Charles is Head of the Commonwealth too, but most of the members of it are Republics and its membership has been growing, not declining, as even places not initially in the Empire joined it, so clearly are not that directly associated with the crown despite Charles being nominally Head. So it reads like some kind of slam against the Commonwealth for no real reason. It has no real purpose, yet is still going - why is that something to be so angry about?
Especially considering the final point concludes on the essential success of constitutional monarchy working despite being nonsensical, of the danger of taking one's country too seriously.
How can you not get this? Monarchy IS ritual and mystery, you can see it as silly, whimsical, charming, entrancing or mad, but it is intrinsic
Getting people to vote for symbolic constitutional change is hard. People don’t like change. The Kiwis voted against changing their union-jack-ish flag, for instance (and I rather liked some of the fern versions)
Even little old clubs or large companies have some level of ritual or internal culture, some of which may not make any actual sense but are just done because that is what is done (or what people believe is done).
This does feel a bit like some of the disingenous 'I don't get why people feel sad about the Queen dying, she was old and it's not like people had met her personally ' style comments from 'edgy' people online - as though people could not possibly understand others feeling something about a famous person, despite a million examples of things like people going 'That's so sad' when an actor or musician they admire dies, which is the same thing.
*turns out there wasn't one
https://youtu.be/Ahr4KFl79WI
The Stone of Destiny was supposed to have been Irish or perhaps Biblical. Yet the one used today is from Scone. And likely not the original.
Its just a bit odd. Had it been the boulder that King Arthur pulled the stone from to slay the dragon, then maybe that's interesting. Otherwise, meh.
Look at Jamaica - political consensus on removing the monarchy for decades, and public support for it, yet as of today they still haven't done it. It's not simply about waiting for the Queen to die, plenty of places went republican during her reign (most recently the Bahamas).
I'm sure they'll get to it soon now (the wikipedia page says they now want to hold a referendum - I think they require one, unlike a simple legislative vote in some places - by 2025 to coincide with a general election) but the delay will still equal almost 20 years from when there were firm statements made that it would happen swiftly.
And you can bet some people will still be talking about what a shock and hammer blow it will be to Charles when it happens.
They did have some rocking suggestions for a new flag. Look at this! BASED
It's made of sandstone consistent with that at Scone. So either a fake, or it wasn't ever used in Ireland/Argyll/Moray to crown non-Alba kings.
I am hugely confident subsequent poll from this company will show conservatives back in the twenties with Labour seventeen ahead.
To answer your question, many recent polls have shown with some increases for Labour, so keep a peeper on that part of the graph. But with Libdems the main winners in recent polling, greens up too, a moving around of the LLG deckchairs during campaigning is to be expected - when the Truss Debacle happened Labour shot up with Lib Dem’s and greens down, not just Truss Tories, greedy Labour were always going to belch some of that Lib Dem and green back out during this locals campaign.
Why didn’t I simply type, nothing remarkable to see here move along now
Either way kiwis really weren’t keen. 57/43 is a solid defeat
NZ is very Woke and I imagine for a lot of conservative Kiwis this was an easy quiet way to say Fuck You to the lefty elite
It surely cannot be the original.
The former US president attacked the former SNP leader as he visited his golf resort Trump Turnberry in South Ayrshire on the third day of his trip to Scotland.
He said: “Nicola Sturgeon has not been very nice to me. She never liked what we did for Scotland. My mother was Scottish. The people of Scotland are very proud of what I did for Scotland.
“I think she [Sturgeon] was anti-business. She is a negative force.”
Trump said Sturgeon “has been a very successful politician” but her resignation as first minister was a “good change for Scotland”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-nicola-sturgeon-was-a-negative-force-who-hurt-scotland-nbg0snv9q
Politicians in monarchies will often be republican because it means more money, prestige and power for THEM
I might get a couple of dozen
Or is it another SKS lie?
One can only imagine the kind of argument there would be over what rights and mechanisms should be codified in such a document, to say nothing of the likely need to put the outcome to a referendum and obtain majorities for it in all four constituent parts of the UK. It's an immense undertaking and would make the entire Brexit shitstorm pale by comparison.
Stopped e-consult and only the 8am rush available now, which is like trying to buy tickets to Glastonbury when they go on sale. Every day.
This thread has just been abolished!
Lots of small r republicans will both watch it (and enjoy it) too, including plenty on here.
This is like obsessives masturbating themselves silly into a sore penis thinking about STV.
https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/coronation-quiche
And the drinks
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12031213/Cheers-Coronation-cocktails.html
Are they prepared to go to war with the nation's entire serried ranks of Nimbies, to stop them from bogging down virtually every attempt at development through planning objections - and find enough extra money in taxes to get most of the homes and all of the associated infrastructure built (because the housebuilders aren't going to ruin their profit margins by flooding the country with product out of the goodness of their flinty little hearts?) Not convinced.
The reality is that it will upset a whole load of people like HYUFD, but they are largely in constituencies that don't vote labour anyway.
(Yes, it’s silly, but the monarchy is inherently silly)
(checks twitter)
IT'S TRUE!
But, the question of the hour is: is JMS as good as a CERTAIN PBer's FAN FIC/REBOOT? I THINK NOT.