Support for Britain becoming a republic reaches new high – politicalbetting.com

System

Support for Britain becoming a republic reaches new high – politicalbetting.com

It was always going to be the case surely that support for the monarchy would fall off a bit following the death of the Queen. She had a very special appeal built up over the decades and this was something that she could not pass on to her firstborn.

Read the full story here

eek

First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.

I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.

Pagan2

eek said:

First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.

I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.

That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest

Malmesbury

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigelb said:

This is an effort doomed to failure, I think.

Rishi Sunak races to tighten rules for AI amid fears of existential risk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/rishi-sunak-races-to-tighten-rules-for-ai-amid-fears-of-existential-risk
Rishi Sunak is scrambling to update the government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence, amid warnings that the industry poses an existential risk to humanity unless countries radically change how they allow the technology to be developed.

The prime minister and his officials are looking at ways to tighten the UK’s regulation of cutting-edge technology, as industry figures warn the government’s AI white paper, published just two months ago, is already out of date.

Government sources have told the Guardian the prime minister is increasingly concerned about the risks posed by AI, only weeks after his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, said he wanted the UK to “win the race” to develop the technology.

Sunak is pushing allies to formulate an international agreement on how to develop AI capabilities, which could even lead to the creation of a new global regulator. Meanwhile Conservative and Labour MPs are calling on the prime minister to pass a separate bill that could create the UK’s first AI-focused watchdog...

I wonder if they asked ChatGPT to come up with a better researched whitepaper it would have been better? Almost certainly

The panic over AI is ridiculous. It is the most important innovation since the internet. It has the opportunity to create (not destroy) thousands of skilled jobs in this country due to our genuine "world beating" (yes genuinely) IT sector. The government should be talking it up, not indulging in Luddite posturing to appeal to the technologically illiterate

My guess is that the German Greens will go down the same road that they went on Biotechnology.

Which will mean that German policy and hence EU policy will be....

The eu is already on it
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/18/eus-new-ai-law-targets-big-tech-companies-but-is-probably-only-going-to-harm-the-smallest-ones/

as well as trying to bring in client side scanning

That guarantees, if passed, that AIs in Europe will be from code downloaded from some serious suspect places.....

Pagan2

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigelb said:

This is an effort doomed to failure, I think.

Rishi Sunak races to tighten rules for AI amid fears of existential risk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/rishi-sunak-races-to-tighten-rules-for-ai-amid-fears-of-existential-risk
Rishi Sunak is scrambling to update the government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence, amid warnings that the industry poses an existential risk to humanity unless countries radically change how they allow the technology to be developed.

The prime minister and his officials are looking at ways to tighten the UK’s regulation of cutting-edge technology, as industry figures warn the government’s AI white paper, published just two months ago, is already out of date.

Government sources have told the Guardian the prime minister is increasingly concerned about the risks posed by AI, only weeks after his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, said he wanted the UK to “win the race” to develop the technology.

Sunak is pushing allies to formulate an international agreement on how to develop AI capabilities, which could even lead to the creation of a new global regulator. Meanwhile Conservative and Labour MPs are calling on the prime minister to pass a separate bill that could create the UK’s first AI-focused watchdog...

I wonder if they asked ChatGPT to come up with a better researched whitepaper it would have been better? Almost certainly

The panic over AI is ridiculous. It is the most important innovation since the internet. It has the opportunity to create (not destroy) thousands of skilled jobs in this country due to our genuine "world beating" (yes genuinely) IT sector. The government should be talking it up, not indulging in Luddite posturing to appeal to the technologically illiterate

My guess is that the German Greens will go down the same road that they went on Biotechnology.

Which will mean that German policy and hence EU policy will be....

The eu is already on it
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/18/eus-new-ai-law-targets-big-tech-companies-but-is-probably-only-going-to-harm-the-smallest-ones/

as well as trying to bring in client side scanning

That guarantees, if passed, that AIs in Europe will be from code downloaded from some serious suspect places.....

See also
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/17/eu-commissioner-heading-push-for-client-side-scanning-continues-to-say-dumb-stuff-in-defense-of-her-terrible-proposal/

Malmesbury

On topic - historically popularity of the Monarchy has waxed and waned. Such as Queen Victoria's "retirement" after Albert died.

LostPassword

The monarchy will only be an issue at the next election if Labour are determined to find a way to lose that election.

LostPassword

eek said:

First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.

I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.

The Irish President is elected, but the nomination requirements are fairly stringent, which cuts down on some potential candidatures. To be nominated you need the support of 20 members of the Oireachtas (currently 1-in-11) or 4 of the 31 County or City councils, or to be the incumbent.

Malmesbury

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigelb said:

This is an effort doomed to failure, I think.

Rishi Sunak races to tighten rules for AI amid fears of existential risk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/rishi-sunak-races-to-tighten-rules-for-ai-amid-fears-of-existential-risk
Rishi Sunak is scrambling to update the government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence, amid warnings that the industry poses an existential risk to humanity unless countries radically change how they allow the technology to be developed.

The prime minister and his officials are looking at ways to tighten the UK’s regulation of cutting-edge technology, as industry figures warn the government’s AI white paper, published just two months ago, is already out of date.

Government sources have told the Guardian the prime minister is increasingly concerned about the risks posed by AI, only weeks after his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, said he wanted the UK to “win the race” to develop the technology.

Sunak is pushing allies to formulate an international agreement on how to develop AI capabilities, which could even lead to the creation of a new global regulator. Meanwhile Conservative and Labour MPs are calling on the prime minister to pass a separate bill that could create the UK’s first AI-focused watchdog...

I wonder if they asked ChatGPT to come up with a better researched whitepaper it would have been better? Almost certainly

The panic over AI is ridiculous. It is the most important innovation since the internet. It has the opportunity to create (not destroy) thousands of skilled jobs in this country due to our genuine "world beating" (yes genuinely) IT sector. The government should be talking it up, not indulging in Luddite posturing to appeal to the technologically illiterate

My guess is that the German Greens will go down the same road that they went on Biotechnology.

Which will mean that German policy and hence EU policy will be....

The eu is already on it
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/18/eus-new-ai-law-targets-big-tech-companies-but-is-probably-only-going-to-harm-the-smallest-ones/

as well as trying to bring in client side scanning

That guarantees, if passed, that AIs in Europe will be from code downloaded from some serious suspect places.....

See also
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/17/eu-commissioner-heading-push-for-client-side-scanning-continues-to-say-dumb-stuff-in-defense-of-her-terrible-proposal/

Yup. Literally

Nigelb

If it ever tops 40%, things will start to get interesting.
Until then, it's just something for TSE to do a regular Sunday thread on.

Nigelb

Good thread on Kissinger by someone with first hand knowledge.

I worked with Henry Kissinger. In retrospect, I shouldn't have. Deep in the foreign policy establishment as I was, it seemed like a kind of validation. He was the guy we discussed around our dining room table when I was growing up. He was undoubtedly brilliant. He picked me.
https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1662117824830099456

ping

I did say at the time of the coronation, that the monarchist forces had overreached. Particularly the repressive policing and exerting editorial control over the BBC.

The manufacturing of King Charles does feel like the last hurrah of a failed institution.

I doubt Starmer will expend any political capital on changing things, though.

The media environment isn’t changing in the Windsors favour, either. The republicans can let it slide into irrelevance.

I mean, this is a valiant effort at spinning the casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12118665/amp/Duchess-Edinburgh-deeply-saddened-death-woman-81-hit-police-escort.html

It’s not convincing, is it?

Pagan2

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigelb said:

This is an effort doomed to failure, I think.

Rishi Sunak races to tighten rules for AI amid fears of existential risk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/rishi-sunak-races-to-tighten-rules-for-ai-amid-fears-of-existential-risk
Rishi Sunak is scrambling to update the government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence, amid warnings that the industry poses an existential risk to humanity unless countries radically change how they allow the technology to be developed.

The prime minister and his officials are looking at ways to tighten the UK’s regulation of cutting-edge technology, as industry figures warn the government’s AI white paper, published just two months ago, is already out of date.

Government sources have told the Guardian the prime minister is increasingly concerned about the risks posed by AI, only weeks after his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, said he wanted the UK to “win the race” to develop the technology.

Sunak is pushing allies to formulate an international agreement on how to develop AI capabilities, which could even lead to the creation of a new global regulator. Meanwhile Conservative and Labour MPs are calling on the prime minister to pass a separate bill that could create the UK’s first AI-focused watchdog...

I wonder if they asked ChatGPT to come up with a better researched whitepaper it would have been better? Almost certainly

The panic over AI is ridiculous. It is the most important innovation since the internet. It has the opportunity to create (not destroy) thousands of skilled jobs in this country due to our genuine "world beating" (yes genuinely) IT sector. The government should be talking it up, not indulging in Luddite posturing to appeal to the technologically illiterate

My guess is that the German Greens will go down the same road that they went on Biotechnology.

Which will mean that German policy and hence EU policy will be....

The eu is already on it
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/18/eus-new-ai-law-targets-big-tech-companies-but-is-probably-only-going-to-harm-the-smallest-ones/

as well as trying to bring in client side scanning

That guarantees, if passed, that AIs in Europe will be from code downloaded from some serious suspect places.....

See also
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/17/eu-commissioner-heading-push-for-client-side-scanning-continues-to-say-dumb-stuff-in-defense-of-her-terrible-proposal/

Yup. Literally

Though the online safety bill isn't any better. So the uk is completely able to have fuckwit politicians as well

rcs1000

And in the US:

Pagan2

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

Is it not true that "My husband is from texas" passes the fault test?

Malmesbury

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigelb said:

This is an effort doomed to failure, I think.

Rishi Sunak races to tighten rules for AI amid fears of existential risk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/rishi-sunak-races-to-tighten-rules-for-ai-amid-fears-of-existential-risk
Rishi Sunak is scrambling to update the government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence, amid warnings that the industry poses an existential risk to humanity unless countries radically change how they allow the technology to be developed.

The prime minister and his officials are looking at ways to tighten the UK’s regulation of cutting-edge technology, as industry figures warn the government’s AI white paper, published just two months ago, is already out of date.

Government sources have told the Guardian the prime minister is increasingly concerned about the risks posed by AI, only weeks after his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, said he wanted the UK to “win the race” to develop the technology.

Sunak is pushing allies to formulate an international agreement on how to develop AI capabilities, which could even lead to the creation of a new global regulator. Meanwhile Conservative and Labour MPs are calling on the prime minister to pass a separate bill that could create the UK’s first AI-focused watchdog...

I wonder if they asked ChatGPT to come up with a better researched whitepaper it would have been better? Almost certainly

The panic over AI is ridiculous. It is the most important innovation since the internet. It has the opportunity to create (not destroy) thousands of skilled jobs in this country due to our genuine "world beating" (yes genuinely) IT sector. The government should be talking it up, not indulging in Luddite posturing to appeal to the technologically illiterate

My guess is that the German Greens will go down the same road that they went on Biotechnology.

Which will mean that German policy and hence EU policy will be....

The eu is already on it
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/18/eus-new-ai-law-targets-big-tech-companies-but-is-probably-only-going-to-harm-the-smallest-ones/

as well as trying to bring in client side scanning

That guarantees, if passed, that AIs in Europe will be from code downloaded from some serious suspect places.....

See also
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/17/eu-commissioner-heading-push-for-client-side-scanning-continues-to-say-dumb-stuff-in-defense-of-her-terrible-proposal/

Yup. Literally

Though the online safety bill isn't any better. So the uk is completely able to have fuckwit politicians as well

Nearly no-where is looking at the reality of all of this.

The problem, as I've said before, is politicians are either lawyers or are absorbed into the legal mindset.

This means that they believe in the absolute primacy of the legal process (obvious caveat - they control it). So the idea that there is a "safe"/"safety deposit box" they can't open with a court order is something like unthinkable.

Pagan2

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigelb said:

This is an effort doomed to failure, I think.

Rishi Sunak races to tighten rules for AI amid fears of existential risk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/rishi-sunak-races-to-tighten-rules-for-ai-amid-fears-of-existential-risk
Rishi Sunak is scrambling to update the government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence, amid warnings that the industry poses an existential risk to humanity unless countries radically change how they allow the technology to be developed.

The prime minister and his officials are looking at ways to tighten the UK’s regulation of cutting-edge technology, as industry figures warn the government’s AI white paper, published just two months ago, is already out of date.

Government sources have told the Guardian the prime minister is increasingly concerned about the risks posed by AI, only weeks after his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, said he wanted the UK to “win the race” to develop the technology.

Sunak is pushing allies to formulate an international agreement on how to develop AI capabilities, which could even lead to the creation of a new global regulator. Meanwhile Conservative and Labour MPs are calling on the prime minister to pass a separate bill that could create the UK’s first AI-focused watchdog...

I wonder if they asked ChatGPT to come up with a better researched whitepaper it would have been better? Almost certainly

The panic over AI is ridiculous. It is the most important innovation since the internet. It has the opportunity to create (not destroy) thousands of skilled jobs in this country due to our genuine "world beating" (yes genuinely) IT sector. The government should be talking it up, not indulging in Luddite posturing to appeal to the technologically illiterate

My guess is that the German Greens will go down the same road that they went on Biotechnology.

Which will mean that German policy and hence EU policy will be....

The eu is already on it
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/18/eus-new-ai-law-targets-big-tech-companies-but-is-probably-only-going-to-harm-the-smallest-ones/

as well as trying to bring in client side scanning

That guarantees, if passed, that AIs in Europe will be from code downloaded from some serious suspect places.....

See also
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/17/eu-commissioner-heading-push-for-client-side-scanning-continues-to-say-dumb-stuff-in-defense-of-her-terrible-proposal/

Yup. Literally

Though the online safety bill isn't any better. So the uk is completely able to have fuckwit politicians as well

Nearly no-where is looking at the reality of all of this.

The problem, as I've said before, is politicians are either lawyers or are absorbed into the legal mindset.

This means that they believe in the absolute primacy of the legal process (obvious caveat - they control it). So the idea that there is a "safe"/"safety deposit box" they can't open with a court order is something like unthinkable.

One of the interesting things on the online safety bill that I haven't seen commented on is that wikipedia have threatened to block uk users due to its provisions

Sunil_Prasannan

eek said:

First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.

I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.

King Harry is not impossible.

LostPassword

Nigelb said:

Good thread on Kissinger by someone with first hand knowledge.

I worked with Henry Kissinger. In retrospect, I shouldn't have. Deep in the foreign policy establishment as I was, it seemed like a kind of validation. He was the guy we discussed around our dining room table when I was growing up. He was undoubtedly brilliant. He picked me.
https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1662117824830099456

Thanks for that. I particularly appreciated this tweet.

"The truth is much uglier, much more mixed. I wish we all had the moral clarity and knowledge of history to view the bad as bad and the good as good and recognize they could exist side by side in a single individual."

Sunil_Prasannan

Malmesbury said:

On topic - historically popularity of the Monarchy has waxed and waned. Such as Queen Victoria's "retirement" after Albert died.

And 1649 and all that...

biggles

“I wonder whether this could be an issue at the next election”.

Eh? No. No, it won’t.

Sunil_Prasannan

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigelb said:

This is an effort doomed to failure, I think.

Rishi Sunak races to tighten rules for AI amid fears of existential risk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/rishi-sunak-races-to-tighten-rules-for-ai-amid-fears-of-existential-risk
Rishi Sunak is scrambling to update the government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence, amid warnings that the industry poses an existential risk to humanity unless countries radically change how they allow the technology to be developed.

The prime minister and his officials are looking at ways to tighten the UK’s regulation of cutting-edge technology, as industry figures warn the government’s AI white paper, published just two months ago, is already out of date.

Government sources have told the Guardian the prime minister is increasingly concerned about the risks posed by AI, only weeks after his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, said he wanted the UK to “win the race” to develop the technology.

Sunak is pushing allies to formulate an international agreement on how to develop AI capabilities, which could even lead to the creation of a new global regulator. Meanwhile Conservative and Labour MPs are calling on the prime minister to pass a separate bill that could create the UK’s first AI-focused watchdog...

I wonder if they asked ChatGPT to come up with a better researched whitepaper it would have been better? Almost certainly

The panic over AI is ridiculous. It is the most important innovation since the internet. It has the opportunity to create (not destroy) thousands of skilled jobs in this country due to our genuine "world beating" (yes genuinely) IT sector. The government should be talking it up, not indulging in Luddite posturing to appeal to the technologically illiterate

My guess is that the German Greens will go down the same road that they went on Biotechnology.

Which will mean that German policy and hence EU policy will be....

The eu is already on it
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/18/eus-new-ai-law-targets-big-tech-companies-but-is-probably-only-going-to-harm-the-smallest-ones/

as well as trying to bring in client side scanning

That guarantees, if passed, that AIs in Europe will be from code downloaded from some serious suspect places.....

Choose the next head of state by AI?

HYUFD

28% is hardly 'a new high' in fact it is little different to most other Republic polls last year.

The fact that despite the efforts of the Campaign Group Republic more people voted for Corbyn to become PM even in 2019 than would vote to replace the monarchy with a President shows how little support there is for it in the UK

Chris

Malmesbury said:

On topic - historically popularity of the Monarchy has waxed and waned. Such as Queen Victoria's "retirement" after Albert died.

Quite believable the British monarchy will last as long as the human race, on present evidence.

Andy_JS

Not surprising when he keeps getting involved in political issues. The Queen spent 70 years being 100% neutral.

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

OldKingCole

Sunil_Prasannan said:

eek said:

First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.

I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.

King Harry is not impossible.

So the monarchist cry will be “God for Harry, England and St George”?

And Plaid sweep Wales, the Nats Scotland but the DUP and the Shinners still snarl at each other in Norn!

Chris

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

Yes, but "some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs" probably want to legalise hunting with dogs, as far as homosexuals are concerned.

ydoethur

I think the header means 'since polling records began.' I'd be surprised if support for a republic hadn't been quite a bit higher than 28% in the 1820s or 1870s but we don't of course have the figures to prove it.

I think really the most striking thing is how low support for a republic is despite the confident claims of its supporters for the last 350 years that it was just around the corner.

In the Commonwealth realms it would be different. A better bet would be on which one of those becomes a republic first. I would suggest the Bahamas would be the likeliest, although there are several others in the Caribbean scheduled to hold referendums at about the same time.

HYUFD

ping said:

I did say at the time of the coronation, that the monarchist forces had overreached. Particularly the repressive policing and exerting editorial control over the BBC.

The manufacturing of King Charles does feel like the last hurrah of a failed institution.

I doubt Starmer will expend any political capital on changing things, though.

The media environment isn’t changing in the Windsors favour, either. The republicans can let it slide into irrelevance.

I mean, this is a valiant effort at spinning the casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12118665/amp/Duchess-Edinburgh-deeply-saddened-death-woman-81-hit-police-escort.html

It’s not convincing, is it?

You do realise presidential motorcades have crashes and hit bystanders too and sometimes kill them unfortunately as well? Neither have anything to do with the passengers
https://www.lusakatimes.com/2023/04/07/lusaka-woman-dies-after-being-hit-by-presidential-motorcade-sweeper/
https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/news/2020/12/08/president-elect-joe-biden-motorcade-involved-crash-monday/6491445002/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLJdXtErqo
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/05/kamala-harris-secret-service-motorcade-crash/8191873001/

HYUFD

Boris met Trump in the US yesterday to discuss Ukraine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65724800

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

ping said:

I did say at the time of the coronation, that the monarchist forces had overreached. Particularly the repressive policing and exerting editorial control over the BBC.

The manufacturing of King Charles does feel like the last hurrah of a failed institution.

I doubt Starmer will expend any political capital on changing things, though.

The media environment isn’t changing in the Windsors favour, either. The republicans can let it slide into irrelevance.

I mean, this is a valiant effort at spinning the casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12118665/amp/Duchess-Edinburgh-deeply-saddened-death-woman-81-hit-police-escort.html

It’s not convincing, is it?

You do realise presidential motorcades have crashes and hit bystanders too and sometimes kill them unfortunately as well? Neither have anything to do with the passengers
https://www.lusakatimes.com/2023/04/07/lusaka-woman-dies-after-being-hit-by-presidential-motorcade-sweeper/
https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/news/2020/12/08/president-elect-joe-biden-motorcade-involved-crash-monday/6491445002/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLJdXtErqo
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/05/kamala-harris-secret-service-motorcade-crash/8191873001/

One of Nixon's more infamous moments - which is saying something - came after his motorcade had caused a major pileup.

He tactlessly asked a very seriously injured outrider, 'do you like your work?'

LostPassword

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

27th anniversary of the legalisation of divorce in Ireland coming up next month.

OldKingCole

HYUFD said:

Boris met Trump in the US yesterday to discuss Ukraine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65724800

Who paid for Boris’ trip?

Big_G_NorthWales

HYUFD said:

Boris met Trump in the US yesterday to discuss Ukraine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65724800

And that is good news - dear me !!!!!

RobD

ping said:

I did say at the time of the coronation, that the monarchist forces had overreached. Particularly the repressive policing and exerting editorial control over the BBC.

The manufacturing of King Charles does feel like the last hurrah of a failed institution.

I doubt Starmer will expend any political capital on changing things, though.

The media environment isn’t changing in the Windsors favour, either. The republicans can let it slide into irrelevance.

I mean, this is a valiant effort at spinning the casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12118665/amp/Duchess-Edinburgh-deeply-saddened-death-woman-81-hit-police-escort.html

It’s not convincing, is it?

"casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way"

Well that's one way to put it. Others might call it an accident.

Stuartinromford

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Boris met Trump in the US yesterday to discuss Ukraine
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65724800

And that is good news - dear me !!!!!

If Boris and Don having a pretendy summit is the price we have to pay for them not having a real summit meeting, I'm all for that. Heck, I'd even chip in for a Truman Show style fake Number Ten and White House if it stopped them wanting the real things.

They both strike me as vain enough not to notice the fakery.

HYUFD

LostPassword said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

27th anniversary of the legalisation of divorce in Ireland coming up next month.

So a mere 138 years after divorce was legalised for most in England and Wales

viewcode

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ping said:

I did say at the time of the coronation, that the monarchist forces had overreached. Particularly the repressive policing and exerting editorial control over the BBC.

The manufacturing of King Charles does feel like the last hurrah of a failed institution.

I doubt Starmer will expend any political capital on changing things, though.

The media environment isn’t changing in the Windsors favour, either. The republicans can let it slide into irrelevance.

I mean, this is a valiant effort at spinning the casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12118665/amp/Duchess-Edinburgh-deeply-saddened-death-woman-81-hit-police-escort.html

It’s not convincing, is it?

You do realise presidential motorcades have crashes and hit bystanders too and sometimes kill them unfortunately as well? Neither have anything to do with the passengers
https://www.lusakatimes.com/2023/04/07/lusaka-woman-dies-after-being-hit-by-presidential-motorcade-sweeper/
https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/news/2020/12/08/president-elect-joe-biden-motorcade-involved-crash-monday/6491445002/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLJdXtErqo
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/05/kamala-harris-secret-service-motorcade-crash/8191873001/

One of Nixon's more infamous moments - which is saying something - came after his motorcade had caused a major pileup.

He tactlessly asked a very seriously injured outrider, 'do you like your work?'

In his defense, Nixon was famously poor at small talk

Sean_F

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

Is this a law that only applies to wives, in which case it’s deeply sexist, or to both spouses, in which case it’s not?

Leon

Yawn

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

I think the header means 'since polling records began.' I'd be surprised if support for a republic hadn't been quite a bit higher than 28% in the 1820s or 1870s but we don't of course have the figures to prove it.

I think really the most striking thing is how low support for a republic is despite the confident claims of its supporters for the last 350 years that it was just around the corner.

In the Commonwealth realms it would be different. A better bet would be on which one of those becomes a republic first. I would suggest the Bahamas would be the likeliest, although there are several others in the Caribbean scheduled to hold referendums at about the same time.

Many already have become republics eg Trinidad and most recently Barbados while staying in the Commonwealth

viewcode

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

ydoethur

viewcode said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ping said:

I did say at the time of the coronation, that the monarchist forces had overreached. Particularly the repressive policing and exerting editorial control over the BBC.

The manufacturing of King Charles does feel like the last hurrah of a failed institution.

I doubt Starmer will expend any political capital on changing things, though.

The media environment isn’t changing in the Windsors favour, either. The republicans can let it slide into irrelevance.

I mean, this is a valiant effort at spinning the casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12118665/amp/Duchess-Edinburgh-deeply-saddened-death-woman-81-hit-police-escort.html

It’s not convincing, is it?

You do realise presidential motorcades have crashes and hit bystanders too and sometimes kill them unfortunately as well? Neither have anything to do with the passengers
https://www.lusakatimes.com/2023/04/07/lusaka-woman-dies-after-being-hit-by-presidential-motorcade-sweeper/
https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/news/2020/12/08/president-elect-joe-biden-motorcade-involved-crash-monday/6491445002/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLJdXtErqo
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/05/kamala-harris-secret-service-motorcade-crash/8191873001/

One of Nixon's more infamous moments - which is saying something - came after his motorcade had caused a major pileup.

He tactlessly asked a very seriously injured outrider, 'do you like your work?'

In his defense, Nixon was famously poor at small talk

That reminds me of the SNP's defence of Margaret Ferrier:

'She's hard of thinking.'

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

I think the header means 'since polling records began.' I'd be surprised if support for a republic hadn't been quite a bit higher than 28% in the 1820s or 1870s but we don't of course have the figures to prove it.

I think really the most striking thing is how low support for a republic is despite the confident claims of its supporters for the last 350 years that it was just around the corner.

In the Commonwealth realms it would be different. A better bet would be on which one of those becomes a republic first. I would suggest the Bahamas would be the likeliest, although there are several others in the Caribbean scheduled to hold referendums at about the same time.

Many already have become republics eg Trinidad and most recently Barbados while staying in the Commonwealth

Ok, pedant, the first of the current lot to become republics.

(Wasn't India the first to become a republic while staying in the Commonwealth?)

Big_G_NorthWales

Maybe we should have a thread on why Mo Salah is devastated Liverpool are not in the champions league, and when was the last time none of Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs qualified to play in it

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

I think the header means 'since polling records began.' I'd be surprised if support for a republic hadn't been quite a bit higher than 28% in the 1820s or 1870s but we don't of course have the figures to prove it.

I think really the most striking thing is how low support for a republic is despite the confident claims of its supporters for the last 350 years that it was just around the corner.

In the Commonwealth realms it would be different. A better bet would be on which one of those becomes a republic first. I would suggest the Bahamas would be the likeliest, although there are several others in the Caribbean scheduled to hold referendums at about the same time.

Many already have become republics eg Trinidad and most recently Barbados while staying in the Commonwealth

Ok, pedant, the first of the current lot to become republics.

(Wasn't India the first to become a republic while staying in the Commonwealth?)

I think so. India was by far the most significant. Indeed even if every remaining Commonwealth realm became a republic, the King would still have seen fewer former Commonwealth realms become republics than his mother and grandfather did

HYUFD

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

algarkirk

Nigelb said:

If it ever tops 40%, things will start to get interesting.
Until then, it's just something for TSE to do a regular Sunday thread on.

While 40% would be interesting, it would not change the political maths.

To alter the head of state arrangement there are two quite separate questions: What is the public mood; and the political numbers.

To get to the republican goal several things need to happen, and only Labour can even think of it. It is absolute no go area for Tories.

1) It requires a mandate, so must be in a manifesto
2) It requires a party with this manifesto to win
3) It requires a referendum, and to win,
4) It required enacting.

Support for the monarchy is across the central political spectrum, increasing with age. Older northern WWC are as loyal in this as Sussex flower arrangers.

Elections turn on a % of people vote switching. A few % points means win or lose. Even if only 10% of voters would switch to support the monarchy, the cause and the election is lost. So in any currently foreseeable case, it will not be in a manifesto of any party trying to win.

Leon

The long day ends in the billionaire’s pavilion

Beibheirli_C

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

I think the header means 'since polling records began.' I'd be surprised if support for a republic hadn't been quite a bit higher than 28% in the 1820s or 1870s but we don't of course have the figures to prove it.

I think really the most striking thing is how low support for a republic is despite the confident claims of its supporters for the last 350 years that it was just around the corner.

In the Commonwealth realms it would be different. A better bet would be on which one of those becomes a republic first. I would suggest the Bahamas would be the likeliest, although there are several others in the Caribbean scheduled to hold referendums at about the same time.

Many already have become republics eg Trinidad and most recently Barbados while staying in the Commonwealth

Ok, pedant, the first of the current lot to become republics.

(Wasn't India the first to become a republic while staying in the Commonwealth?)

I think so. India was by far the most significant. Indeed even if every remaining Commonwealth realm became a republic, the King would still have seen fewer former Commonwealth realms become republics than his mother and grandfather did

Than his mother, undoubtedly. Are you sure about his grandfather? I thought only India and Pakistan became republics on his watch.

Edit - and on checking I'm wrong about Pakistan. Ireland was the one I was thinking of, but I can't explain why I thought they were similar.

HYUFD

Tories surge ahead of Labour in Bluewall southern seats in new Redfield poll.

The Tories are now on 40% in the Bluewall with Labour on 34% and the LDs 22% and Sunak leads Starmer by a big 10% margin as preferred PM, a 3% swing from Starmer to Sunak since the last poll. The poll was taken after Sir Keir said he would push for more developments in the greenbelt while Sunak's government has abandoned housing targets
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12125185/Conservatives-surge-ahead-Labour-Blue-Wall-seats-time-Rishi-Sunak-PM.html

Beibheirli_C

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Malmesbury said:

Pagan2 said:

Malmesbury said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Nigelb said:

This is an effort doomed to failure, I think.

Rishi Sunak races to tighten rules for AI amid fears of existential risk
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/may/26/rishi-sunak-races-to-tighten-rules-for-ai-amid-fears-of-existential-risk
Rishi Sunak is scrambling to update the government’s approach to regulating artificial intelligence, amid warnings that the industry poses an existential risk to humanity unless countries radically change how they allow the technology to be developed.

The prime minister and his officials are looking at ways to tighten the UK’s regulation of cutting-edge technology, as industry figures warn the government’s AI white paper, published just two months ago, is already out of date.

Government sources have told the Guardian the prime minister is increasingly concerned about the risks posed by AI, only weeks after his chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, said he wanted the UK to “win the race” to develop the technology.

Sunak is pushing allies to formulate an international agreement on how to develop AI capabilities, which could even lead to the creation of a new global regulator. Meanwhile Conservative and Labour MPs are calling on the prime minister to pass a separate bill that could create the UK’s first AI-focused watchdog...

I wonder if they asked ChatGPT to come up with a better researched whitepaper it would have been better? Almost certainly

The panic over AI is ridiculous. It is the most important innovation since the internet. It has the opportunity to create (not destroy) thousands of skilled jobs in this country due to our genuine "world beating" (yes genuinely) IT sector. The government should be talking it up, not indulging in Luddite posturing to appeal to the technologically illiterate

My guess is that the German Greens will go down the same road that they went on Biotechnology.

Which will mean that German policy and hence EU policy will be....

The eu is already on it
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/18/eus-new-ai-law-targets-big-tech-companies-but-is-probably-only-going-to-harm-the-smallest-ones/

as well as trying to bring in client side scanning

That guarantees, if passed, that AIs in Europe will be from code downloaded from some serious suspect places.....

Choose the next head of state by will be an AI?

FTFY

ydoethur

HYUFD said:

Tories surge ahead of Labour in Bluewall southern seats in new Redfield poll.

The Tories are now on 40% in the Bluewall with Labour on 34% and the LDs 22% and Sunak leads Starmer by a big 10% margin as preferred PM, a 3% swing from Starmer to Sunak since the last poll. The poll was taken after Sir Keir said he would push for more developments in the greenbelt while Sunak's government has abandoned housing targets
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12125185/Conservatives-surge-ahead-Labour-Blue-Wall-seats-time-Rishi-Sunak-PM.html

Sunak, as predicted by a certain very brilliant poster with a penchant for awesome punning, has led them back from the abyss by pushing them to safety in their safe seats.

Shame about the others but omelettes and eggs.

HYUFD

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

Beibheirli_C

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

Old celibate men in frocks are not exactly fonts of wisdom regarding either women or marriage - although I suppose there is always the Bishop of Galway...

Sean_F

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

I think the header means 'since polling records began.' I'd be surprised if support for a republic hadn't been quite a bit higher than 28% in the 1820s or 1870s but we don't of course have the figures to prove it.

I think really the most striking thing is how low support for a republic is despite the confident claims of its supporters for the last 350 years that it was just around the corner.

In the Commonwealth realms it would be different. A better bet would be on which one of those becomes a republic first. I would suggest the Bahamas would be the likeliest, although there are several others in the Caribbean scheduled to hold referendums at about the same time.

Many already have become republics eg Trinidad and most recently Barbados while staying in the Commonwealth

Ok, pedant, the first of the current lot to become republics.

(Wasn't India the first to become a republic while staying in the Commonwealth?)

I think so. India was by far the most significant. Indeed even if every remaining Commonwealth realm became a republic, the King would still have seen fewer former Commonwealth realms become republics than his mother and grandfather did

Than his mother, undoubtedly. Are you sure about his grandfather? I thought only India and Pakistan became republics on his watch.

Edit - and on checking I'm wrong about Pakistan. Ireland was the one I was thinking of, but I can't explain why I thought they were similar.

Partition on a partly religious basis?

kinabalu

Leon said:

The long day ends in the billionaire’s pavilion

When can you escape that shithole?

algarkirk

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.

More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.

Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.

Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.

Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.

PadTheHoundsman

I do wish this old canard of the Royals being a drain on the public purse would be put to rest. If the Crown's private income were taxed like anyone else and the Crown were left to pay for its own upkeep, it would generate far LESS for the government than currently, since ALL the Crown's income goes straight to the Exchequer and only a fraction of it is drawn out for running costs - i.e. the Sovereign Grant. The funding for the Sovereign Grant is about 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate. Essentially the Crown pays 85% tax!.

Can we please stop telling lies about the Crown's 'cost'. The Crown costs us nothing.

HYUFD

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

Tories surge ahead of Labour in Bluewall southern seats in new Redfield poll.

The Tories are now on 40% in the Bluewall with Labour on 34% and the LDs 22% and Sunak leads Starmer by a big 10% margin as preferred PM, a 3% swing from Starmer to Sunak since the last poll. The poll was taken after Sir Keir said he would push for more developments in the greenbelt while Sunak's government has abandoned housing targets
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12125185/Conservatives-surge-ahead-Labour-Blue-Wall-seats-time-Rishi-Sunak-PM.html

Sunak, as predicted by a certain very brilliant poster with a penchant for awesome punning, has led them back from the abyss by pushing them to safety in their safe seats.

Shame about the others but omelettes and eggs.

Sunak also helped by being more NIMBY than Boris and Liz too, while Sir Keir pushes to get the bulldozers started on the green fields of southern England. It is now likely that many of those who voted for Nimby LD or Independent candidates on May 4th in the local elections in the Southern and Home Counties shires will now vote Tory again at the next general election to keep Sir Keir from concreting over their beloved Greenbelt

Leon

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The long day ends in the billionaire’s pavilion

When can you escape that shithole?

Not til sunday earliest. Just gotta put my head down, do the work, endure it - then escape when I can

It’s work. It’s hard. That’s life

Carnyx

ydoethur said:

viewcode said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ping said:

I did say at the time of the coronation, that the monarchist forces had overreached. Particularly the repressive policing and exerting editorial control over the BBC.

The manufacturing of King Charles does feel like the last hurrah of a failed institution.

I doubt Starmer will expend any political capital on changing things, though.

The media environment isn’t changing in the Windsors favour, either. The republicans can let it slide into irrelevance.

I mean, this is a valiant effort at spinning the casual killing of an innocent woman who got in the families way;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12118665/amp/Duchess-Edinburgh-deeply-saddened-death-woman-81-hit-police-escort.html

It’s not convincing, is it?

You do realise presidential motorcades have crashes and hit bystanders too and sometimes kill them unfortunately as well? Neither have anything to do with the passengers
https://www.lusakatimes.com/2023/04/07/lusaka-woman-dies-after-being-hit-by-presidential-motorcade-sweeper/
https://eu.delawareonline.com/story/news/2020/12/08/president-elect-joe-biden-motorcade-involved-crash-monday/6491445002/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOLJdXtErqo
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/10/05/kamala-harris-secret-service-motorcade-crash/8191873001/

One of Nixon's more infamous moments - which is saying something - came after his motorcade had caused a major pileup.

He tactlessly asked a very seriously injured outrider, 'do you like your work?'

In his defense, Nixon was famously poor at small talk

That reminds me of the SNP's defence of Margaret Ferrier:

'She's hard of thinking.'

Actually, I've bewcome marginally more able to understand how she and Mr Cummings could do what they did, after reading about the neurological and cognitive effects of covid infection.

But that doesn't change what they did. Or the exemplary issue of their roles in government at the time, Ms F admittedly rather less than Mr C.

ydoethur

Carnyx said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

HYUFD said:

ydoethur said:

I think the header means 'since polling records began.' I'd be surprised if support for a republic hadn't been quite a bit higher than 28% in the 1820s or 1870s but we don't of course have the figures to prove it.

I think really the most striking thing is how low support for a republic is despite the confident claims of its supporters for the last 350 years that it was just around the corner.

In the Commonwealth realms it would be different. A better bet would be on which one of those becomes a republic first. I would suggest the Bahamas would be the likeliest, although there are several others in the Caribbean scheduled to hold referendums at about the same time.

Many already have become republics eg Trinidad and most recently Barbados while staying in the Commonwealth

Ok, pedant, the first of the current lot to become republics.

(Wasn't India the first to become a republic while staying in the Commonwealth?)

I think so. India was by far the most significant. Indeed even if every remaining Commonwealth realm became a republic, the King would still have seen fewer former Commonwealth realms become republics than his mother and grandfather did

Than his mother, undoubtedly. Are you sure about his grandfather? I thought only India and Pakistan became republics on his watch.

Edit - and on checking I'm wrong about Pakistan. Ireland was the one I was thinking of, but I can't explain why I thought they were similar.

Partition on a partly religious basis?

Civil war? Ongoing instability? Rampaging corruption? Could be many things on those lines I suppose...

LostPassword

PadTheHoundsman said:

I do wish this old canard of the Royals being a drain on the public purse would be put to rest. If the Crown's private income were taxed like anyone else and the Crown were left to pay for its own upkeep, it would generate far LESS for the government than currently, since ALL the Crown's income goes straight to the Exchequer and only a fraction of it is drawn out for running costs - i.e. the Sovereign Grant. The funding for the Sovereign Grant is about 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate. Essentially the Crown pays 85% tax!.

Can we please stop telling lies about the Crown's 'cost'. The Crown costs us nothing.

The Crown Estate is not the private property of the monarch. It belongs to the state. If we became a Republic it certainly wouldn't become the private property of the Windsor's.

Beibheirli_C

PadTheHoundsman said:

I do wish this old canard of the Royals being a drain on the public purse would be put to rest. If the Crown's private income were taxed like anyone else and the Crown were left to pay for its own upkeep, it would generate far LESS for the government than currently, since ALL the Crown's income goes straight to the Exchequer and only a fraction of it is drawn out for running costs - i.e. the Sovereign Grant. The funding for the Sovereign Grant is about 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate. Essentially the Crown pays 85% tax!.

Can we please stop telling lies about the Crown's 'cost'. The Crown costs us nothing.

It is also about social change not money. As long as one family rests at the top of the social pyramid, all their relatives will be "better than us" for no reason other than birth.

There is enough wrong in the world without institutionalising snobbery.

Beibheirli_C

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

While we are at it, let us throw Islam into the mix where a woman's worth is a quarter that of men's...

Religion is a b******d if you are a woman. Frankly I am amazed that other women bother with it at all.

ydoethur

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

While we are at it, let us throw Islam into the mix where a woman's worth is a quarter that of men's...

Religion is a b******d if you are a woman. Frankly I am amazed that other women bother with it at all.

And yet oddly women are in general more religious than men.

Beibheirli_C

ydoethur said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

While we are at it, let us throw Islam into the mix where a woman's worth is a quarter that of men's...

Religion is a b******d if you are a woman. Frankly I am amazed that other women bother with it at all.

And yet oddly women are in general more religious than men.

Self inflicted Stockholm syndrome?

viewcode

Beibheirli_C said:

ydoethur said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

While we are at it, let us throw Islam into the mix where a woman's worth is a quarter that of men's...

Religion is a b******d if you are a woman. Frankly I am amazed that other women bother with it at all.

And yet oddly women are in general more religious than men.

Self inflicted Stockholm syndrome?

Survivorship bias. Think about it...

HYUFD

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

While we are at it, let us throw Islam into the mix where a woman's worth is a quarter that of men's...

Religion is a b******d if you are a woman. Frankly I am amazed that other women bother with it at all.

It certainly isn't if you are Anglican or Lutheran, plenty of women bishops there

Beibheirli_C

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

While we are at it, let us throw Islam into the mix where a woman's worth is a quarter that of men's...

Religion is a b******d if you are a woman. Frankly I am amazed that other women bother with it at all.

It certainly isn't if you are Anglican or Lutheran, plenty of women bishops there

Minor sects compared to the billions of women subjugated and discriminated against in the name of religion.

Carnyx

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

While we are at it, let us throw Islam into the mix where a woman's worth is a quarter that of men's...

Religion is a b******d if you are a woman. Frankly I am amazed that other women bother with it at all.

It certainly isn't if you are Anglican or Lutheran, plenty of women bishops there

I wouldn't get too smug if I were you. Only about a quarter. And how many Archbishops?

https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/women-majority-deacons-ordained-last-year-new-report-shows

NickPalmer

HYUFD said:

Tories surge ahead of Labour in Bluewall southern seats in new Redfield poll.

The Tories are now on 40% in the Bluewall with Labour on 34% and the LDs 22% and Sunak leads Starmer by a big 10% margin as preferred PM, a 3% swing from Starmer to Sunak since the last poll. The poll was taken after Sir Keir said he would push for more developments in the greenbelt while Sunak's government has abandoned housing targets
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12125185/Conservatives-surge-ahead-Labour-Blue-Wall-seats-time-Rishi-Sunak-PM.html

The article seems toi say the figures are 34-33-22, not 40-34-22?

Meanwhile, the national figures are 47-30-9.

LostPassword

Farooq said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

I do wish this old canard of the Royals being a drain on the public purse would be put to rest. If the Crown's private income were taxed like anyone else and the Crown were left to pay for its own upkeep, it would generate far LESS for the government than currently, since ALL the Crown's income goes straight to the Exchequer and only a fraction of it is drawn out for running costs - i.e. the Sovereign Grant. The funding for the Sovereign Grant is about 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate. Essentially the Crown pays 85% tax!.

Can we please stop telling lies about the Crown's 'cost'. The Crown costs us nothing.

The Crown Estate should be nationalised. Then we could keep all the profits.

The Crown Estate *is* nationalised. Has been for centuries. Osborne's settlement to hand over 15% to the royals was absurdly generous at the time, and even more so that the Crown Estate is raking it in from offshore wind power.

kinabalu

Leon said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The long day ends in the billionaire’s pavilion

When can you escape that shithole?

Not til sunday earliest. Just gotta put my head down, do the work, endure it - then escape when I can

It’s work. It’s hard. That’s life

Well ok to be serious, yes, it looks quite nice. Reminds me of one of my favourite North London spots in fact - the Crouch End lido.

NickyBreakspear

NickPalmer said:

HYUFD said:

Tories surge ahead of Labour in Bluewall southern seats in new Redfield poll.

The Tories are now on 40% in the Bluewall with Labour on 34% and the LDs 22% and Sunak leads Starmer by a big 10% margin as preferred PM, a 3% swing from Starmer to Sunak since the last poll. The poll was taken after Sir Keir said he would push for more developments in the greenbelt while Sunak's government has abandoned housing targets
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12125185/Conservatives-surge-ahead-Labour-Blue-Wall-seats-time-Rishi-Sunak-PM.html

The article seems toi say the figures are 34-33-22, not 40-34-22?

Meanwhile, the national figures are 47-30-9.

Looking at the change since the start of the year, as Redfield & Wilton poll the Bluewall twice monthly, the Conservatives are up 4%, Labour down 7% and Lib Dems up 1%. This is broadly comparable to the national position. So no evidence that greenbelt and housing is causing a differential movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Redfield_&_Wilton_Strategies_2

darkage

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.

More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.

Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.

Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.

Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.

Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.

CorrectHorseBat

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1662086484407508992

Chopper's Politics Newsletter: Nigel Farage considering 'volcanic' return to politics 💥

"If I were to, there would be a short term volcanic eruption. The wokerarti would be on the smelling salts. Even the vegan community might go for a bacon sandwich."

Casino_Royale

I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.

It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.

CorrectHorseBat

Casino_Royale said:

I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.

It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.

Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?

TheScreamingEagles

Take back control from our unelected rulers.

RobD

CorrectHorseBat said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.

It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.

Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?

I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Take back control from our unelected rulers.

Look, we did that once already with Brexit and it wasn't exactly a fantastic experience.

Pagan2

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.

I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.

That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest

You don't think people can be trusted to select one?

I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side

bondegezou

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

Your first sentence seems to contradict your second sentence.

TheScreamingEagles

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Take back control from our unelected rulers.

Look, we did that once already with Brexit and it wasn't exactly a fantastic experience.

Yay, another Brexiteer recants.

More joy in heaven etc.

Pagan2

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.

I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.

That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest

You don't think people can be trusted to select one?

I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side

So you don't think the people can be trusted to select anybody?

Actually no I dont because a) most people dont care enough to be politically aware, b) the people they get to select from are universally crap (not their fault) and c) Have you met the average person and 50% are thicker than that

RobD

TheScreamingEagles said:

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Take back control from our unelected rulers.

Look, we did that once already with Brexit and it wasn't exactly a fantastic experience.

Yay, another Brexiteer recants.

More joy in heaven etc.

Who said anything about recanting, perhaps I enjoy the punishment?

CorrectHorseBat

RobD said:

CorrectHorseBat said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.

It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.

Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?

I wonder how many people said the same thing about previous long-reigning monarchs.

What I am saying is what all the polls say. Or do you think Charles will be more popular than Elizabeth?

bondegezou

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

If it ever tops 40%, things will start to get interesting.
Until then, it's just something for TSE to do a regular Sunday thread on.

While 40% would be interesting, it would not change the political maths.

To alter the head of state arrangement there are two quite separate questions: What is the public mood; and the political numbers.

To get to the republican goal several things need to happen, and only Labour can even think of it. It is absolute no go area for Tories.

1) It requires a mandate, so must be in a manifesto
2) It requires a party with this manifesto to win
3) It requires a referendum, and to win,
4) It required enacting.

Support for the monarchy is across the central political spectrum, increasing with age. Older northern WWC are as loyal in this as Sussex flower arrangers.

Elections turn on a % of people vote switching. A few % points means win or lose. Even if only 10% of voters would switch to support the monarchy, the cause and the election is lost. So in any currently foreseeable case, it will not be in a manifesto of any party trying to win.

I’m pretty sure lots of countries have gotten rid of their monarchies without step 3. Indeed, plenty haven’t bothered with steps 1 or 2.

Casino_Royale

LostPassword said:

Farooq said:

PadTheHoundsman said:

I do wish this old canard of the Royals being a drain on the public purse would be put to rest. If the Crown's private income were taxed like anyone else and the Crown were left to pay for its own upkeep, it would generate far LESS for the government than currently, since ALL the Crown's income goes straight to the Exchequer and only a fraction of it is drawn out for running costs - i.e. the Sovereign Grant. The funding for the Sovereign Grant is about 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate. Essentially the Crown pays 85% tax!.

Can we please stop telling lies about the Crown's 'cost'. The Crown costs us nothing.

The Crown Estate should be nationalised. Then we could keep all the profits.

The Crown Estate *is* nationalised. Has been for centuries. Osborne's settlement to hand over 15% to the royals was absurdly generous at the time, and even more so that the Crown Estate is raking it in from offshore wind power.

The Crown as the State is actually different from the Royals themselves.

There is a lot of State property that is owned by "The Crown" that the Royals themselves effectively can't touch.

algarkirk

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

Yes, many religious people take such a view, including me. But what has religion got so exclusively to do with it? There are perfectly good secular this world, personal, society, and social good reasons for marriage, permanence, 'for better for worse', monogamy and faithfulness.

Marriage is a human, not religious invention.

Pagan2

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

Farooq said:

Pagan2 said:

eek said:

First but I would love to see the results when you suggest your replace the Monarchy with either an appointed (worthy as in Ireland) or elected figurehead.

I suspect when you do people will suddenly find the Monarchy an acceptable compromise.

That is very much my position...constituional monarchy is the worst way to select a head of state except all the rest

You don't think people can be trusted to select one?

I dont think they can be trusted given they vote mostly labour or tory in general elections I think I have a fair amount of evidence on my side

So you don't think the people can be trusted to select anybody?

Actually no I dont because a) most people dont care enough to be politically aware, b) the people they get to select from are universally crap (not their fault) and c) Have you met the average person and 50% are thicker than that

Yes, yes. People are thick. Not everybody can be in the top 90% like you.

I havent claimed to be the top 90% I do claim to be more politically aware than most voters which includes people more intelligent than me

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

As Mitt Romney said, "marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman... And a woman... And a woman"

algarkirk

bondegezou said:

algarkirk said:

Nigelb said:

If it ever tops 40%, things will start to get interesting.
Until then, it's just something for TSE to do a regular Sunday thread on.

While 40% would be interesting, it would not change the political maths.

To alter the head of state arrangement there are two quite separate questions: What is the public mood; and the political numbers.

To get to the republican goal several things need to happen, and only Labour can even think of it. It is absolute no go area for Tories.

1) It requires a mandate, so must be in a manifesto
2) It requires a party with this manifesto to win
3) It requires a referendum, and to win,
4) It required enacting.

Support for the monarchy is across the central political spectrum, increasing with age. Older northern WWC are as loyal in this as Sussex flower arrangers.

Elections turn on a % of people vote switching. A few % points means win or lose. Even if only 10% of voters would switch to support the monarchy, the cause and the election is lost. So in any currently foreseeable case, it will not be in a manifesto of any party trying to win.

I’m pretty sure lots of countries have gotten rid of their monarchies without step 3. Indeed, plenty haven’t bothered with steps 1 or 2.

On this subject I think it is fair to say 'That is them and this is us'. We'll find out.

Sean_F

darkage said:

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

Divorce without grounds in quite new to Scotland, and very new to England.

More or less all western systems required grounds, reasons, for divorce until recently.

Texas is entitled to take its own view, and is accountable to Texas voters.

Are they by the way going to make it harder for women than for me? (Which the Old Testament does). I suspect that's why Jesus taught against the Old Testament line.

Most sane people would like divorce (like abortion) to be legal and rare. I doubt if this can be legislated for even in texas.

Marriage means different things to different people. Trying to enforce an essentially religious idea of marriage on a disinterested and largely non-religious population is a completely hopeless cause. The 'no fault' rules are reflective of the worldview of an atomised society.

I don’t think there’s anything especially religious about the view that spouses should take their sworn obligations to each other very seriously. No fault divorce conflicts with that.

It says quite a bit about us, as a society, and nothing good, that breach of a commercial contract attracts a greater legal penalty than breach of one’s marriage vows.

rcs1000

Sean_F said:

HYUFD said:

Beibheirli_C said:

HYUFD said:

viewcode said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

And in the US:

The Vatican also opposes 'no fault divorce' as do some socially conservative, pro traditional family Tory MPs.

It is hardly that extreme a position

People who wish to divorce, or have done, would presumably disagree

They are entitled to their view, the strongly religious to theirs which is marriage should be between one man and one woman for life

When do you propose to start silencing women and making sure that they once again become little more than domestic slaves?

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
1 Timothy 2:12

The Roman Catholic church and Orthodox churches also don't allow women priests still let alone women bishops either of course in line with St Paul's teachings above, unlike most Protestant churches now of course

If anything, I think it would be adulterous men, who dump their wives, like Newt Gingrich or Rudy Guliani, who would lose out, under this law.

Nah.

They would have committed adultery, so they'd be ok.

Casino_Royale

CorrectHorseBat said:

Casino_Royale said:

I don't think the cost and pageantry of the coronation and support for the monarchy, or not, are particularly strongly correlated.

It's prominence, dominance and the start of a new reign has just probably forced some people to have an opinion.

Would you concede that the Royal Family is going to become less popular over time - that the high point was under Elizabeth II?

I wouldn't concede that. In fact, I think it will become more popular under William and Kate.

What you say may be true overseas, but not domestically.