SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Big coverage of the Sunak-Biden deal across the British broadsheets, and a bit on TV and radio. ""Special Relationship" boosted", says the Telegraph.
Nothing whatsoever at the front of any of the major US papers, not even the NYT or Washington Post. Only CNN is carrying anything, of the major networks.
Nothing changes, and roll on the next meeting of the partnership of equals.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
I fear its more than a few, which is why it gets brought up, all that 'earn that call' stuff. The media can manufacture a lot, but I don't think they create that tendency (and its reverse) from nothing.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse.
I actually think its a good idea to have a very weak head of state, as parliamentart governance is the best way to disperse power. But I do laugh at the "democratic" parliament and "political" head of state. You could flip those adjectives!
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
We could do far worse. For all the opprobrium he attracts on here, HY is a good man. A community spirited figure who does a great deal for his local area.
Sorry I disagree, HYUFD has expressed views on here that make me think he is uncaring, unempathetic and a total idiot.....so have you. No wonder you two have a thing.
So says ‘Pagan2’ - the angry weirdo on the internet
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
This is the semi-regular reminder that the actor Raul Julia was badly ill when he took the part and died shortly after. He took it because his kids were fans and he wanted to cheer them up.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
America's true friends are the ones who said "no" to them over Iraq. Your best friend is the one who'll stick up for you when you're right and tell you you're a cnut when you're a cnut.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
America's true friends are the ones who said "no" to them over Iraq. Your best friend is the one who'll stick up for you when you're right and tell you you're a cnut when you're a cnut.
The irony is it was Cnut's friends who told him to do that stupid thing with the sea.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
America's true friends are the ones who said "no" to them over Iraq. Your best friend is the one who'll stick up for you when you're right and tell you you're a cnut when you're a cnut.
Just in the line I was thinking earlier on.
BIden and the US defence and security establishment would probably respect Britain much more if it went off and did it's own thing once in a while, but was still fundamentally an ally, like France.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
America's true friends are the ones who said "no" to them over Iraq. Your best friend is the one who'll stick up for you when you're right and tell you you're a cnut when you're a cnut.
The irony is it was Cnut's friends who told him to do that stupid thing with the sea.
Mr Turing is one of my heroes, thank you for your dedication to this country, we are all so sorry we did not treat you with the respect you deserved, Sir.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
I, on the other hand, think politics (and politicians) would be far better if they knew we could resort to the axe once in a while.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
America's true friends are the ones who said "no" to them over Iraq. Your best friend is the one who'll stick up for you when you're right and tell you you're a cnut when you're a cnut.
The irony is it was Cnut's friends who told him to do that stupid thing with the sea.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
I, on the other hand, think politics (and politicians) would be far better if they knew we could resort to the axe once in a while.
I carefully left open that possibility in my post!
New 4/5 bed detacheds are currently being built and sold by both Persimmon and Redrow in Shaftesbury for approx £4k per m2 but that clearly covers all the ancilliary costs you list above, plus the plot, plus a tidy profit no doubt.
Flats should be cheaper - much less actual building per m2.
The developers say that their profit margin is 20%, so land plus build cost in your example would be £3200 sqm, about correct.
Flats cost more because of the higher specification of common parts and the cost of compliance with building regulations. Most recently I saw £2k/sqm for a partial conversion and part rebuild of an old department store (with 2 extra storeys on the roof). If you knock everything down and rebuild it in a high rise level then you are hitting £4k per sqm, at least. The developers that seem to be doing these schemes are building housing that is not sold off, it is built by institutional investors to be rented out
Both CNN and CBS are now covering the deal a little, but that still seems to be about it.
What strikes me as the really big difference seems to be in the attitude of the British and American print press, which I would assume are more geared to detailed political interests than a generalised TV audience. For not just the Telegraph but also the Guardian, it's central.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
What Ireland does is their affair and they will suffer or benefit from the consequences accordingly. My point is that anyone who is ignorant enough of US politics and demographics to think that the US will put the UK's interests ahead of that of Ireland really does need to educate themselves. We are not friends. We are allies for our own mutual benefit, which is a very different thing.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
What Ireland does is their affair and they will suffer or benefit from the consequences accordingly. My point is that anyone who is ignorant enough of US politics and demographics to think that the US will put the UK's interests ahead of that of Ireland really does need to educate themselves. We are not friends. We are allies for our own mutual benefit, which is a very different thing.
I think there is a bit of friendship there, actually.
Fundamentally, America wouldn't exist without the UK and its principles are built on English rights and English law. They recognise us as cousins and trace back much of their institutional and cultural heritage here.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
What Ireland does is their affair and they will suffer or benefit from the consequences accordingly. My point is that anyone who is ignorant enough of US politics and demographics to think that the US will put the UK's interests ahead of that of Ireland really does need to educate themselves. We are not friends. We are allies for our own mutual benefit, which is a very different thing.
Which includes sharing on nuclear technology and certain other matters to a level which is fairly startling.
Chuck Hansen put it like this - *US* and UK nuclear weapons are actually joint designs.
I think Sunak hasn't got a half-bad deal with the US there. The deal on AI/technology and easier access for engineers and professionals isn't to be sniffed out.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
What Ireland does is their affair and they will suffer or benefit from the consequences accordingly. My point is that anyone who is ignorant enough of US politics and demographics to think that the US will put the UK's interests ahead of that of Ireland really does need to educate themselves. We are not friends. We are allies for our own mutual benefit, which is a very different thing.
Indeed, our closest allies are the Commonwealth realms of Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Then the US and the nations of the EU (including the Republic of Ireland), Switzerland, Norway and Japan, South Korea and Israel. The latter are our allies to contain Putin's Russia and China and terrorist extremists but they are not as close to us as the former are
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts at other times, and in the 1960's, for instance, the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion" of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often, placed itself in the position of fearful and constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power have much underlying respect for.
A little bit of one, and a little bit of the other.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
Yes, it's just a product of the insularity of the type of journalists you get in the Westminster press pool. I do think it reflects badly on us, but it would require a collective change of culture at the BBC and Sky to do anything about it.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
What Ireland does is their affair and they will suffer or benefit from the consequences accordingly. My point is that anyone who is ignorant enough of US politics and demographics to think that the US will put the UK's interests ahead of that of Ireland really does need to educate themselves. We are not friends. We are allies for our own mutual benefit, which is a very different thing.
I think there is a bit of friendship there, actually.
Fundamentally, America wouldn't exist without the UK and its principles are built on English rights and English law. They recognise us as cousins and trace back much of their institutional and cultural heritage here.
Yes, the relationship is complex. But it's there.
That's also why Korea and Japan are such good friends...
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
What Ireland does is their affair and they will suffer or benefit from the consequences accordingly. My point is that anyone who is ignorant enough of US politics and demographics to think that the US will put the UK's interests ahead of that of Ireland really does need to educate themselves. We are not friends. We are allies for our own mutual benefit, which is a very different thing.
I think there is a bit of friendship there, actually.
Fundamentally, America wouldn't exist without the UK and its principles are built on English rights and English law. They recognise us as cousins and trace back much of their institutional and cultural heritage here.
Yes, the relationship is complex. But it's there.
That's also why Korea and Japan are such good friends...
It's not comparable at all. If you want to force an analogy, Korea and Japan's relationship is more like Ireland and Britain than the US and Britain.
There are signs the average Con is doing better in London than elsewhere - if only because they had sunk so low there in 2017-9.
Johnson, of course, is not the average Con. Whether that works in his favour or the very reverse is a question we may have answered soon.
Rather as with this year's local contests, the 2022 London locals had a patchwork of results. The Conservatives did do well in Bexley, Hillingdon, Harrow and retained their strength in Kensington & Chelsea.
The fact remains they lost Westminster, Barnet and Wandsworth to Labour while at the same time losing heavily in Kingston, Richmond and Bromley but doing okay in Sutton against the LDs.
That's the thing with local elections and there may be clues for GE predictions - look at where the Conservative local vote has held up as distinct from where it collapsed.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
What Ireland does is their affair and they will suffer or benefit from the consequences accordingly. My point is that anyone who is ignorant enough of US politics and demographics to think that the US will put the UK's interests ahead of that of Ireland really does need to educate themselves. We are not friends. We are allies for our own mutual benefit, which is a very different thing.
I think there is a bit of friendship there, actually.
Fundamentally, America wouldn't exist without the UK and its principles are built on English rights and English law. They recognise us as cousins and trace back much of their institutional and cultural heritage here.
Yes, the relationship is complex. But it's there.
That's also why Korea and Japan are such good friends...
It's not comparable at all. If you want to force an analogy, Korea and Japan's relationship is more like Ireland and Britain than the US and Britain.
How about Russia and Ukraine then? [Walks off whistling innocently]
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
What Ireland does is their affair and they will suffer or benefit from the consequences accordingly. My point is that anyone who is ignorant enough of US politics and demographics to think that the US will put the UK's interests ahead of that of Ireland really does need to educate themselves. We are not friends. We are allies for our own mutual benefit, which is a very different thing.
I think there is a bit of friendship there, actually.
Fundamentally, America wouldn't exist without the UK and its principles are built on English rights and English law. They recognise us as cousins and trace back much of their institutional and cultural heritage here.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
The decision to support James VII and II was retracted within three years of it being made and the Tories worked with the Whigs to ensure the succession of William III and Mary II after the Glorious Revolution in 1688.
However, when the Tories hesitated about the Protestant succession in 1714, they were locked out of power for more than 50 years and essentially disappeared until being refounded in the 1780s by Pitt the Younger after the loss of the North American colonies.
The extinction of the modern Tories is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Lord North was PM as a Tory from 1774 to 1780 as was the Earl of Bute from 1762 to 1763
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
Well I don't really feel strongly about the monarchy; it's stupid, but in practice it only exists for as long as we let it. Should the monarch be a dick, pretty soon and pretty effectively we'd end up without a monarchy. We wouldn't even have to chop his head off like in the old days. The monarch may legally be sovereign but there is a lot of magical thinking bound up in all that, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But there is a wider point here, in that we live in a system we can change without resorting to violence. That's a truly precious thing, and worth bearing in mind as a consolation prize should your favoured side lose an election.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
I suspect however they don't mean it was an electrically assisted pedal bike.
If it is an electric motorbike that's the third teenager killed riding an illegal bike and trying to get away from the police inside three weeks.
E-bikes are really mopeds, and should be under the same rules as mopeds, including helmets, licence plates and insurance.
Yes I know, but they're far too often not.
I was horrified at the families of the last two victims who had bought the bloody thing as a 16th birthday present and were blaming everyone for the consequences. Admittedly, it's hard to imagine they could be punished more severely than they already have been but talk about a stupid action.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
Not true, the armed forces swear loyalty to the monarch not the PM. Franco and Hitler both came to power when their nations were republics, as did Putin, as did Galtieri, as did Peron, as did Bolsonaro as did Trump. Even Mussolini was ultimately removed by the Italian King.
De Valera, 1st President of the Republic of Ireland, of course signed the condolence book for Hitler at the German Embassy in May 1945
I suspect however they don't mean it was an electrically assisted pedal bike.
If it is an electric motorbike that's the third teenager killed riding an illegal bike and trying to get away from the police inside three weeks.
The “assisted” e-bikes round here are ridden, uniformly at 30mph+. No pedalling seems to be involved.
Parents are reporting that their children are being intimidated out of the bike lanes due to the delivery “bikes” zooming past.
Given that the idiotic bike lane design has about 2 feet for each direction, separated by a painted line… a closing speed of 60mph+ is going to end in tragedy, sooner or later.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
Well I don't really feel strongly about the monarchy; it's stupid, but in practice it only exists for as long as we let it. Should the monarch be a dick, pretty soon and pretty effectively we'd end up without a monarchy. We wouldn't even have to chop his head off like in the old days. The monarch may legally be sovereign but there is a lot of magical thinking bound up in all that, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But there is a wider point here, in that we live in a system we can change without resorting to violence. That's a truly precious thing, and worth bearing in mind as a consolation prize should your favoured side lose an election.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
HYUFD has made over 110,000 posts since pb started counting these things, and probably at least as many before that. It would be a remarkable use of resources by CCHQ if they were monitoring EVERYTHING he said.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
Well I don't really feel strongly about the monarchy; it's stupid, but in practice it only exists for as long as we let it. Should the monarch be a dick, pretty soon and pretty effectively we'd end up without a monarchy. We wouldn't even have to chop his head off like in the old days. The monarch may legally be sovereign but there is a lot of magical thinking bound up in all that, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But there is a wider point here, in that we live in a system we can change without resorting to violence. That's a truly precious thing, and worth bearing in mind as a consolation prize should your favoured side lose an election.
I don't think it's stupid in the slightest.
What we're seeing here on this thread is a couple of lonely and frustrated republicans shouting into the wind.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
The decision to support James VII and II was retracted within three years of it being made and the Tories worked with the Whigs to ensure the succession of William III and Mary II after the Glorious Revolution in 1688.
However, when the Tories hesitated about the Protestant succession in 1714, they were locked out of power for more than 50 years and essentially disappeared until being refounded in the 1780s by Pitt the Younger after the loss of the North American colonies.
The extinction of the modern Tories is a consummation devoutly to be wished.
Lord North was PM as a Tory from 1774 to 1780 as was the Earl of Bute from 1762 to 1763
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
No true, the armed forces swear loyalty to the monarch not the PM. Franco and Hitler both came to power when their nations were republics, as did Putin as did Bolsonaro as did Trump. Even Mussolini was ultimately removed by the Italian King.
De Valera, 1st President of the Republic of Ireland, of course signed the condolence book for Hitler at the German Embassy in May 1945
You might like to look at Irish history duringf the Emergency, which is not what you imply by a long shot.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
Well I don't really feel strongly about the monarchy; it's stupid, but in practice it only exists for as long as we let it. Should the monarch be a dick, pretty soon and pretty effectively we'd end up without a monarchy. We wouldn't even have to chop his head off like in the old days. The monarch may legally be sovereign but there is a lot of magical thinking bound up in all that, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But there is a wider point here, in that we live in a system we can change without resorting to violence. That's a truly precious thing, and worth bearing in mind as a consolation prize should your favoured side lose an election.
No we would just move to the next in line of succession via Parliament as we did with Edward VIII.
January 2021 in the US and January 2023 in Brazil showed how election results are now sometimes challenged by violence, both republics of course with anger over presidential election results from the losers supporters
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
Italy became Fascist when it was a monarchy, so quite possible elsewhere.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
You of all people should be aware of the concept of sampling.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
The Irish have a long history of being pressganged to fight Britain's wars, so I can understand them deciding that they'd had enough and didn't want anything to do with it.
There's actually a bit of a debate around that starting up now, which follows relatively recent changes to acknowledge the Irish who volunteered to fight in the World Wars. The Irish have also faced some criticism from other European countries on their neutrality, with some particularly acerbic comments from Finland on the subject.
I think it's possible to see Ireland's position on neutrality changing in the next decade or two. There's also an awareness that they don't spend enough to defend their waters, though the Southern Star hilariously suggested recently that the rest of Europe should consider paying Ireland to defend its western coast, so there's still a lot of make believe around.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
Well I don't really feel strongly about the monarchy; it's stupid, but in practice it only exists for as long as we let it. Should the monarch be a dick, pretty soon and pretty effectively we'd end up without a monarchy. We wouldn't even have to chop his head off like in the old days. The monarch may legally be sovereign but there is a lot of magical thinking bound up in all that, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But there is a wider point here, in that we live in a system we can change without resorting to violence. That's a truly precious thing, and worth bearing in mind as a consolation prize should your favoured side lose an election.
Point of order, the monarch is a dick.
Sure, but is he a bigger dick than either PM or LOTO?
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
Some fair points here, and this is reminding me of the very strange statement by Blair that Britain had to pay a "blood price" for its <<special relationship>> with the US, by supporting the Iraq War.
In retrospect, and considering attitudes to the Iraq War in the US itself afterwards, that looks like fanatical dogma. Britain gained very little from supporting that war, and arguably lost more by provoking homegrown extremism and greater antipathy in the middle east. The US would not have dropped its defence and security co-operation with Britain had it not supported it, as over Vietnam.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
The best thing about an elected head of state is that you can vote against them if you think they've done a bad job. I like systems were we don't have to resort to the axe if we really want shot of someone.
Well I don't really feel strongly about the monarchy; it's stupid, but in practice it only exists for as long as we let it. Should the monarch be a dick, pretty soon and pretty effectively we'd end up without a monarchy. We wouldn't even have to chop his head off like in the old days. The monarch may legally be sovereign but there is a lot of magical thinking bound up in all that, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
But there is a wider point here, in that we live in a system we can change without resorting to violence. That's a truly precious thing, and worth bearing in mind as a consolation prize should your favoured side lose an election.
Point of order, the monarch is a dick.
Sure, but is he a bigger dick than either PM or LOTO?
Actually, yes, I think so. I have more respect for both Sunak and Starmer. He's not as bad as Truss or the execrable Boris though.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
No he wouldn't, we would have removed him first. He would have to have joined the Brexit Party, he could not be a Tory and back a republic
Why not
As the Tory Party was founded in the 18th century to support the Crown and the future King James' right of succession
Times change
Core principles don't
Your core principles are not mine but we both vote conservative
You aren't a Tory, you would have been a Whig in the 18th century like TSE.
You are only a Conservative in that you normally won't vote Labour
How insulting
Tell that to the local party who I assisted in every election from 1965 apart from 1997 and 2001
Tell that to the late Lord Wyn Roberts and David Jones who I acted as their driver throughout several campaigns
The truth is you are a far right evangelical little englander with very little in common with very many conservatives
Why argue with HYUFD...he is always on message in the hope of climbing the greasy pole and becoming an mp. Sadly for him I suspect there are people from CCHQ who read here and probably will regard him as too dodgy
I would hope people at CCHQ have better things to do with their time than read every post I write here, like trying to hold as many parliamentary seats as we can next year
You of all people should be aware of the concept of sampling.
If all MPs have to be CCHQ or Labour NEC automatons what is the point anyway if you aren't allowed any leeway to say what you think? Yes you need some party discipline but there has to be scope for free thought too, especially in line with your party's ideology
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Mmmmm but was he a fascist at that point?
Let's think. He shot all the Communists, ruled a de facto one party state and put a huge number of restrictions on the Jews.
I think that sounds fairly fascist. Close enough, anyway.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
It should not need restating but it clearly does. There are no friends in international relations, only coinciding interests. Successive US administrations have long regarded Ireland an important ally because of their shared anti-colonial history and the large Irish demographic which influences US relations. Any British politician who expects that to change is only fooling themselves.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
Sure, tit for tat is a sound basis for an alliance. You will have my back, but only so long as I have yours.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
And what if they say "nah, we're good thanks"?
Then, you alter your tax laws.
Who alters whose tax laws? Ireland doesn't have to alter its tax laws. Are you saying we alter our tax laws? In what way?
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
Some fair points here, and this is reminding me of the very strange statement by Blair that Britain had to pay a "blood price" for its <<special relationship>> with the US, by supporting the War in Iraq.
In retrospect, and considering attitudes to the Iraq War in the US itself afterwards, that looks like fanatical dogma. Britain gained very little from supporting that war, and the US would not have dropped its defence and security co-operation with Britain if it had not supported it, as over Vietnam.
The Iraq War has removed Saddam and replaced him with an elected government, had Saddam still been in power now he would be actively supporting Putin.
The Iraq War was far more successful than the Vietnam War and indeed Afghanistan too now the Taliban are back in power and Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan anyway
SouthamObserver is right, as this sort of thing is just pathetic, though the corrollary is when people really overreact either to americans not saying such a thing, or wetting themselves to things like Aussie tv presenters guffawing over a trade deal - it's needy in another direction
This is just the media doing what they do and making fools of themselves. It does not reflect the country - except perhaps for a few weird MPs and a couple of PB posters
It does come across as needy. Frankly, the US does not give us enough backing. Siding with Ireland, a cowardly neutral on collective defence, vs us looks very badly on America protecting its true allies.
The Irish have a long history of being pressganged to fight Britain's wars, so I can understand them deciding that they'd had enough and didn't want anything to do with it.
There's actually a bit of a debate around that starting up now, which follows relatively recent changes to acknowledge the Irish who volunteered to fight in the World Wars. The Irish have also faced some criticism from other European countries on their neutrality, with some particularly acerbic comments from Finland on the subject.
I think it's possible to see Ireland's position on neutrality changing in the next decade or two. There's also an awareness that they don't spend enough to defend their waters, though the Southern Star hilariously suggested recently that the rest of Europe should consider paying Ireland to defend its western coast, so there's still a lot of make believe around.
Proud Irishmen, like my great grandfather, who volunteered for the British army, did so often with disgust at the majority position among the Irish populace and the position of the Irish state. While I agree with the point below that countries should fight in wars out of "friendship", I think there is a moral duty to fight against evil even if not in the direct interest of the state's citizens. Ireland failed that moral test.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
Some fair points here, and this is reminding me of the very strange statement by Blair that Britain had to pay a "blood price" for its <<special relationship>> with the US, by supporting the War in Iraq.
In retrospect, and considering attitudes to the Iraq War in the US subdequently, that looks like fanatical dogma. Britain gained very little from supporting that war, and the US would not have dropped its defence and security co-operation with Britain if it had not supported it, as over Vietnam.
It’s not as if we owed the US any more than they owed us. We had shed blood together.
And in the mid 60’s, we were fighting our own jungle war, in Borneo.
If it is an electric motorbike that's the third teenager killed riding an illegal bike and trying to get away from the police inside three weeks.
The whole situation regarding electric bikes - proper motorcycles/scooters and assisted pedal bikes alike - is a raging bin fire that the government needs to sort out.
Many electric pedal bikes can go as fast or faster than 50cc mopeds, but unlike a moped don't require a license, training, insurance or a helmet. No wonder kids are dying on them.
Electric motorcycles and scooters are almost as bad. You can legally ride up to a 125cc petrol bike on one day's training, but those are limited to 14hp engines so novice riders can't take a bend at 90mph and splatter themselves on the scenery. Going above 14hp requires passing three tests and getting a full license.
But there are electric '125cc equivalents' on the market that have peak power outputs up to 32hp; these things are far faster than a petrol 125 and have utterly insane acceleration. The only reason we don't see regular reports of teenagers killing their silly selves on these things is because they're still quite rare. But that will change.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
That would be fun given there are multiple pretenders.
Unless they go down the Norwegian route, find a younger son of a neighbouring kingdom and offer him the crown.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Horthy was overthrown by the Nazis in 1944, so obviously not fascist enough!
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Mmmmm but was he a fascist at that point?
Let's think. He shot all the Communists, ruled a de facto one party state and put a huge number of restrictions on the Jews.
I think that sounds fairly fascist. Close enough, anyway.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Mmmmm but was he a fascist at that point?
Let's think. He shot all the Communists, ruled a de facto one party state and put a huge number of restrictions on the Jews.
I think that sounds fairly fascist. Close enough, anyway.
Well, we're going to end up in a debate of what constitutes fascism and I don't think it's easy to reach consensus on that. I would note that each of those things has a lamentably wider history than just within fascism. But let's not get too far into this, you're at too much of an advantage and I don't want to be too strident about definitions or pedantic about timelines. I defer to you under slight protest. And obviously I was referring to Mussolini, for the record.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Or the Thai Monarchy. The underlying issue is that good constitutions can add a higher bar to takeover but what really matters is a healthy democratic culture and the moral decency of the populace.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
'Far better off' is a gross exaggeration. They were not noticeably better off under Communism and there were times when things were worse than they had been under the Tsars, notably 1920-22, 1929-33 and 1941-47 (the last not really being Stalin's fault).
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Horthy was overthrown by the Nazis in 1944, so obviously not fascist enough!
Funny thing is, fascists don't actually get on well with fascists. When the Nazis occupied other countries, they often shunned the local fascist parties. It one of the most illuminating mirrors in history, that.
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
Some fair points here, and this is reminding me of the very strange statement by Blair that Britain had to pay a "blood price" for its <<special relationship>> with the US, by supporting the War in Iraq.
In retrospect, and considering attitudes to the Iraq War in the US subdequently, that looks like fanatical dogma. Britain gained very little from supporting that war, and the US would not have dropped its defence and security co-operation with Britain if it had not supported it, as over Vietnam.
It’s not as if we owed the US any more than they owed us. We had shed blood together.
And in the mid 60’s, we were fighting our own jungle war, in Borneo.
Until recently 1968 was the only year without a combat death in the British military.
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
I think the relationship between most Western democracies is a more than a purely transactional one.
We would not side with China if they offered us back Hong Kong, or Russia, if they offered us territory in the Baltic.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Mmmmm but was he a fascist at that point?
Let's think. He shot all the Communists, ruled a de facto one party state and put a huge number of restrictions on the Jews.
I think that sounds fairly fascist. Close enough, anyway.
Well, we're going to end up in a debate of what constitutes fascism and I don't think it's easy to reach consensus on that. I would note that each of those things has a lamentably wider history than just within fascism. But let's not get too far into this, you're at too much of an advantage and I don't want to be too strident about definitions or pedantic about timelines. I defer to you under slight protest. And obviously I was referring to Mussolini, for the record.
I know you were.
And technically of course you are correct as Mussolini was the one who coined the term 'fascist.'
You should not altogether exclude the possibility that I was being mischievous.
Seriously though I would put Horthy as the first among the Fascist dictators of Europe as would Mark Mazower who wrote the standard work on the subject.
Legal question, why does Johnson have no legal recourse?
Because Parliament is supreme. Its decisions can't be questioned by the courts.
Well, except when they are, of course. The Prorogation decision, whilst understandable on its facts, did nothing for clarity in this area.
Prorogation was an act of the Executive ie the Crown, the Chief Executive being the Queen (we had a civil war to establish the monarch’s executive decisions and those of his or her ministers are amenable to the courts) on the advice of her prime minister done TO Parliament rather than an act of or BY Parliament.
The Queen did not save us that day, she was a willing participant in an unlawful act.
I believe the Americans call that an unindicted co-conspirator.
Out of curiosity, if she had refused to follow the instructions of Dumbinic Cummings and Massive Johnson, would that have made her an unelected dictator in your eyes?
No.
Shagger would have called a who governs election on the principle of abolishing the monarchy.
I consider that an absolute win.
So you're admitting it was all Johnson's fault and nothing to do with the Queen?
No, a directly elected Head of State would have had the authority to reject the unlawful prorogation.
So you want a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the democratically elected Parliament.
No thanks.
Only when the government put forward unlawful acts.
Right now the monarch will acquiesce to all sorts of bullshit.
And who but the courts decide it is unlawful? As I say you want a political head of state and when you have one you will moan about their decisions as well.
Best to ignore your wishes as they are based simply on being contrary and have no basis in logic.
Wanting a political head of state who can challenge the authority of the parliament if it acts unlawfully is not wholly illogical, if that is the system someone wants.
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Often defenders of the monarchy claim that it would act as a bulwark against fascism, and they get a bit testy if you point out that the monarch simply acts as the puppet of the PM, and so would do nothing to resist fascism.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
The first ever fascist leader of a country was appointed by a monarch.
Actually Miklos Horthy derived his title from the exiled monarch, but refused to speak to him or meet with him.
Horthy was overthrown by the Nazis in 1944, so obviously not fascist enough!
Funny thing is, fascists don't actually get on well with fascists. When the Nazis occupied other countries, they often shunned the local fascist parties. It one of the most illuminating mirrors in history, that.
As fascism is a form of nationalism enforced by violence, it isn't entirely surprising that fascist states are often in conflict.
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
I think the relationship between most Western democracies is a more than a purely transactional one.
We would not side with China if they offered us back Hong Kong, or Russia, if they offered us territory in the Baltic.
Why would China offer us Hong Kong? We suck up to them anyway, unasked and without bribes.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Or the Thai Monarchy. The underlying issue is that good constitutions can add a higher bar to takeover but what really matters is a healthy democratic culture and the moral decency of the populace.
If Putin had been under a Tsar, he would have been the fall guy long ago for bad things that have happened during his 'reign'. I don't disagree about the importance of culture, but the structure of institutions matters too.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Most of the dictators in the world today are Presidents.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
De facto this means giving China hegemony over most of Eurasia.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Not if that monarch is circumscribed by law in the way they are in modern European monarchies. Indeed both a PM and an elected ceremonial president could try to claim some sort of democratic mandate for their actions. Something a monarch cannot do.
The monarch serves the purpose of representing the country above the level of politics. Ultimately they represent the People rather than the Government. Hence the reason that it is important that our armed forces swear allegience to the monarch, and through them to the people, rather than to any one partisan government.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s elections.
. . . . Because of the ruling, new maps are likely in Alabama and Louisiana . . . .
The outcome was unexpected in that the court had allowed the challenged Alabama map to be used for the 2022 elections, and in arguments last October the justices appeared willing to make it harder to challenge redistricting plans as racially discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The chief justice himself suggested last year that he was open to changes in the way courts weigh discrimination claims under the part of the law known as section 2. But on Thursday, Roberts wrote that the court was declining “to recast our section 2 case law as Alabama requests.”
Roberts also was part of conservative high-court majorities in earlier cases that made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021.
The other four conservative justices dissented Thursday. . . .
The case stems from challenges to Alabama’s seven-district congressional map, which included one district in which Black voters form a large enough majority that they have the power to elect their preferred candidate. The challengers said that one district is not enough, pointing out that overall, Alabama’s population is more than 25% Black. . . .
Louisiana’s congressional map had separately been identified as probably discriminatory by a lower court. That map, too, remained in effect last year and now will have to be redrawn.
The National Redistricting Foundation said in a statement that its pending lawsuits over congressional districts in Georgia and Texas also could be affected.
Separately, the Supreme Court in the fall will hear South Carolina’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that found Republican lawmakers stripped Black voters from a district to make it safer for a Republican candidate. . . .
Partisan politics also underlies the Alabama case. . . . The judges found that Alabama concentrated Black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it much more difficult to elect more than one candidate of their choice.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
'Far better off' is a gross exaggeration. They were not noticeably better off under Communism and there were times when things were worse than they had been under the Tsars, notably 1920-22, 1929-33 and 1941-47 (the last not really being Stalin's fault).
Stalin killed far more than Nicholas II ever did and Putin is getting on that way too having caused the invasion of Ukraine
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Or the Thai Monarchy. The underlying issue is that good constitutions can add a higher bar to takeover but what really matters is a healthy democratic culture and the moral decency of the populace.
If Putin had been under a Tsar, he would have been the fall guy long ago for bad things that have happened during his 'reign'. I don't disagree about the importance of culture, but the structure of institutions matters too.
Strongly disagree. There is a long tradition across Eastern Europe of poor people hating the nobles and believing the Emperor is a good man that would intervene if only he knew of their struggles.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Most of the dictators in the world today are Presidents.
Most democracies in the world today are republics.
I think there's both friendship and commonalities, in some areas, and a subservient relationship in others.
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts, and in the 1960's the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion: of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often fearfully placed itself in the position of constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power respect much.
The point being - and the one I think some people forget - is that friendship requires sacrifice, a willingness to do something for someone else even at the risk of harm to yourselves. I just don't think that democraices - or rather democratically elected Governments - can or should operate in that way. The first duty of any government is to the well being and best interests of its own citizens. Now it may well be that the best interests of its citizens are served by helping others - just as we are doing with Ukraine and the US did with us in WW2. But that is not friendship. It is national self interest. Anyone who relies on that help extending beyond the point at which it becomes harmful or negative for the helping country is heading for a very nasty awakening.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
Some fair points here, and this is reminding me of the very strange statement by Blair that Britain had to pay a "blood price" for its <<special relationship>> with the US, by supporting the War in Iraq.
In retrospect, and considering attitudes to the Iraq War in the US itself afterwards, that looks like fanatical dogma. Britain gained very little from supporting that war, and the US would not have dropped its defence and security co-operation with Britain if it had not supported it, as over Vietnam.
The Iraq War has removed Saddam and replaced him with an elected government, had Saddam still been in power now he would be actively supporting Putin.
The Iraq War was far more successful than the Vietnam War and indeed Afghanistan too now the Taliban are back in power and Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan anyway
Much of this is debatable, although interestingly I agree that Iraq is closer than in recent decades to becoming a democracy, but the fact remains that Britain had no need to join, other than Blair and much of the British defence and security establishment's fearful idea that it had to. This was also enormously buttressed by outlets like the Telegraph, Mail and sun, and virtually all of the Conservative Party, at the time.
This was a bad and fearful miscalculation, and damaged Britain's security more than benefitting it.
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
I think a monarch would find it far easier to pull a Putin than a Prime Minister or a Ceremonial President in a parliamentary system. Look at Meiji Japan.
Most of the dictators in the world today are Presidents.
Most democracies in the world today are republics.
Percentage wise republics have fewer democracies than constitutional monarchies.
Constitutional monarchies are also much richer per head on average than republics too
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
'Far better off' is a gross exaggeration. They were not noticeably better off under Communism and there were times when things were worse than they had been under the Tsars, notably 1920-22, 1929-33 and 1941-47 (the last not really being Stalin's fault).
Stalin killed far more than Nicholas II ever did and Putin is getting on that way too having caused the invasion of Ukraine
No-one with modern democratic sensibilities would design the system around a monarchy, even a ceremonial one. It exists only insofar as it embraces the British mentality of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". The monarchy of course knows this, which is why it is so ruthlessly careful to stay out of political disputes. At least that was the case under ERII, who knows under CRIII.
I’m not sure your first sentence is true. Take the example of Russia. If you were to design a democratic system that couldn’t be captured by someone like Putin again, the restoration of the monarchy might not be a bad idea.
Indeed Russia was far better off with the Tsars than Stalin and Putin and the world safer too, if the remaining descendents of Nicholas II moved towards constitutional monarchy their restoration would be ideal
The Revolution happened because of the fact Nicholas II was so appallingly anti-democratic. That's the problem with monarchy, you end up rolling the dice on who comes to the throne with no choice over it.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
De facto this means giving China hegemony over most of Eurasia.
Not if the breakaway states joined the Western alliance one by one. The best example is Yugoslavia. As piece by piece became Western aligned, even Serbia eventually realised the game was up.
Comments
Pretending to be mad that a figurehead monarch did not act when you want a non figurehead elected head of state is, however, just plain silly. I'm beginning to suspect it isn't a weak joke but considered to be some kind of serious gotcha, which is much worse. Even if it 'succeeds' in getting people to respond it's a weak troll.
Big coverage of the Sunak-Biden deal across the British broadsheets, and a bit on TV and radio. ""Special Relationship" boosted", says the Telegraph.
Nothing whatsoever at the front of any of the major US papers, not even the NYT or Washington Post. Only CNN is carrying anything, of the major networks.
Nothing changes, and roll on the next meeting of the partnership of equals.
https://youtube.com/shorts/SIje8RRnayU
US interest, in general, looks very limited.
Your best friend is the one who'll stick up for you when you're right and tell you you're a cnut when you're a cnut.
BIden and the US defence and security establishment would probably respect Britain much more if it went off and did it's own thing once in a while, but was still fundamentally an ally, like France.
Let us never make these mistakes again.
The 'special' relationship is based on the principle of mutual interests, not on any inherent love between the countries. It goes better for both sides when they remember that and stop assuming automatic support (as the US found with Vietnam and Syria and we found with Suez and Brexit)
If Parliament wished to change the rules around prorogation, that remains entirely in its power. It need only legislate to do so.
Parliament is bound by existing law, but has an absolute power to change it, following its own procedures.
The committee is following those procedures.
The developers say that their profit margin is 20%, so land plus build cost in your example would be £3200 sqm, about correct.
Flats cost more because of the higher specification of common parts and the cost of compliance with building regulations. Most recently I saw £2k/sqm for a partial conversion and part rebuild of an old department store (with 2 extra storeys on the roof). If you knock everything down and rebuild it in a high rise level then you are hitting £4k per sqm, at least. The developers that seem to be doing these schemes are building housing that is not sold off, it is built by institutional investors to be rented out
What strikes me as the really big difference seems to be in the attitude of the British and American print press, which I would assume are more geared to detailed political interests than a generalised TV audience. For not just the Telegraph but also the Guardian, it's central.
Ireland should certainly be told there’s nothing noble about their neutrality, and their ability to function as the rich world’s biggest tax haven depends on their willingness to contribute to the rich world’s defence.
Fundamentally, America wouldn't exist without the UK and its principles are built on English rights and English law. They recognise us as cousins and trace back much of their institutional and cultural heritage here.
Yes, the relationship is complex. But it's there.
Chuck Hansen put it like this - *US* and UK nuclear weapons are actually joint designs.
He's rather good at diplomacy.
Then the US and the nations of the EU (including the Republic of Ireland), Switzerland, Norway and Japan, South Korea and Israel. The latter are our allies to contain Putin's Russia and China and terrorist extremists but they are not as close to us as the former are
Americans are often aware of the British input into their institutions, history and language, despite also the heavy conflicts at other times, and in the 1960's, for instance, the Beatles and the whole wave of "British Invasion" of popular culture were often treated as visiting friends.
On the other hand, particularly since the 1980's, Britain has far too often, placed itself in the position of fearful and constantly reliable subordinate, rather than critical friend or ally, on international issues, which is something I doubt the functionaries of American economic and military power have much underlying respect for.
A little bit of one, and a little bit of the other.
[Walks off whistling innocently]
Teen on e-bike dies after colliding with ambulance
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65850704
I suspect however they don't mean it was an electrically assisted pedal bike.
If it is an electric motorbike that's the third teenager killed riding an illegal bike and trying to get away from the police inside three weeks.
An elected figurehead President, as they have in Ireland, might be better placed to act as a bulkhead against a Fascist PM.
And that is all before you add in political expediency and internal national politics.
But there is a wider point here, in that we live in a system we can change without resorting to violence. That's a truly precious thing, and worth bearing in mind as a consolation prize should your favoured side lose an election.
I was horrified at the families of the last two victims who had bought the bloody thing as a 16th birthday present and were blaming everyone for the consequences. Admittedly, it's hard to imagine they could be punished more severely than they already have been but talk about a stupid action.
De Valera, 1st President of the Republic of Ireland, of course signed the condolence book for Hitler at the German Embassy in May 1945
Parents are reporting that their children are being intimidated out of the bike lanes due to the delivery “bikes” zooming past.
Given that the idiotic bike lane design has about 2 feet for each direction, separated by a painted line… a closing speed of 60mph+ is going to end in tragedy, sooner or later.
What we're seeing here on this thread is a couple of lonely and frustrated republicans shouting into the wind.
January 2021 in the US and January 2023 in Brazil showed how election results are now sometimes challenged by violence, both republics of course with anger over presidential election results from the losers supporters
There's actually a bit of a debate around that starting up now, which follows relatively recent changes to acknowledge the Irish who volunteered to fight in the World Wars. The Irish have also faced some criticism from other European countries on their neutrality, with some particularly acerbic comments from Finland on the subject.
I think it's possible to see Ireland's position on neutrality changing in the next decade or two. There's also an awareness that they don't spend enough to defend their waters, though the Southern Star hilariously suggested recently that the rest of Europe should consider paying Ireland to defend its western coast, so there's still a lot of make believe around.
In retrospect, and considering attitudes to the Iraq War in the US itself afterwards, that looks like fanatical dogma. Britain gained very little from supporting that war, and arguably lost more by provoking homegrown extremism and greater antipathy in the middle east. The US would not have dropped its defence and security co-operation with Britain had it not supported it, as over Vietnam.
He's not as bad as Truss or the execrable Boris though.
I think that sounds fairly fascist. Close enough, anyway.
The Iraq War was far more successful than the Vietnam War and indeed Afghanistan too now the Taliban are back in power and Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan anyway
And in the mid 60’s, we were fighting our own jungle war, in Borneo.
Many electric pedal bikes can go as fast or faster than 50cc mopeds, but unlike a moped don't require a license, training, insurance or a helmet. No wonder kids are dying on them.
Electric motorcycles and scooters are almost as bad. You can legally ride up to a 125cc petrol bike on one day's training, but those are limited to 14hp engines so novice riders can't take a bend at 90mph and splatter themselves on the scenery. Going above 14hp requires passing three tests and getting a full license.
But there are electric '125cc equivalents' on the market that have peak power outputs up to 32hp; these things are far faster than a petrol 125 and have utterly insane acceleration. The only reason we don't see regular reports of teenagers killing their silly selves on these things is because they're still quite rare. But that will change.
Unless they go down the Norwegian route, find a younger son of a neighbouring kingdom and offer him the crown.
King Andrei of Russia...or maybe not!
We would not side with China if they offered us back Hong Kong, or Russia, if they offered us territory in the Baltic.
And technically of course you are correct as Mussolini was the one who coined the term 'fascist.'
You should not altogether exclude the possibility that I was being mischievous.
Seriously though I would put Horthy as the first among the Fascist dictators of Europe as would Mark Mazower who wrote the standard work on the subject.
It is very hard to inculcate democracy in a country so big. The best thing for Russia is for breakway parts to become democratic piece by piece as independent states, free from the internal colonialism of Moscow.
The monarch serves the purpose of representing the country above the level of politics. Ultimately they represent the People rather than the Government. Hence the reason that it is important that our armed forces swear allegience to the monarch, and through them to the people, rather than to any one partisan government.
AP (via Seattle Times) - Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters in unexpected defense of Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s elections.
. . . . Because of the ruling, new maps are likely in Alabama and Louisiana . . . .
The outcome was unexpected in that the court had allowed the challenged Alabama map to be used for the 2022 elections, and in arguments last October the justices appeared willing to make it harder to challenge redistricting plans as racially discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The chief justice himself suggested last year that he was open to changes in the way courts weigh discrimination claims under the part of the law known as section 2. But on Thursday, Roberts wrote that the court was declining “to recast our section 2 case law as Alabama requests.”
Roberts also was part of conservative high-court majorities in earlier cases that made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021.
The other four conservative justices dissented Thursday. . . .
The case stems from challenges to Alabama’s seven-district congressional map, which included one district in which Black voters form a large enough majority that they have the power to elect their preferred candidate. The challengers said that one district is not enough, pointing out that overall, Alabama’s population is more than 25% Black. . . .
Louisiana’s congressional map had separately been identified as probably discriminatory by a lower court. That map, too, remained in effect last year and now will have to be redrawn.
The National Redistricting Foundation said in a statement that its pending lawsuits over congressional districts in Georgia and Texas also could be affected.
Separately, the Supreme Court in the fall will hear South Carolina’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that found Republican lawmakers stripped Black voters from a district to make it safer for a Republican candidate. . . .
Partisan politics also underlies the Alabama case. . . . The judges found that Alabama concentrated Black voters in one district, while spreading them out among the others to make it much more difficult to elect more than one candidate of their choice.
This was a bad and fearful miscalculation, and damaged Britain's security more than benefitting it.
Constitutional monarchies are also much richer per head on average than republics too