Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests...
...democracy and Western civilisation.
They are the heirs to the 1930s Tory appeasers.
Good job the Labour Party can still be relied upon to be the party of national security…
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
I don't think Trump has anything to do with it. The US is perfectly well aware of the implications of the dangers of escalation and will avoid anything that risks it.
Plus of course no country can join NATO while it is engaged in a conflict.
Yes, but neither can NATO - or the west - give in to threats of escalation, as that means we just give in to anyone with nukes (which will also increase the reasons for countries to get nukes...).
Putin has been threatening escalation the whole time, and has done very little even as we have sent increasingly powerful weapons systems into Ukraine. And why? Because strategic and tactical nukes are useless in this war, and the negatives of using them far outweigh any gains.
The age old dilemma presents itself when faced with a bully.
Some parents will tell their children "just ignore them, they're not worth it". That can work - often the bullied will get their revenge in a quiet way many years later when they're minting it and the former bully's working down carphone warehouse. But sometimes it just makes things worse.
Others will tell them "square up to him, if he punches punch him back. Then he'll leave you along". That can also work, but sometimes it means getting punched even harder.
Putin is clearly a bully. I'm in the punch him back camp because that's what Ukraine has decided to do, and it's cowardice to skulk in the corner while one of your friends is defending themselves against the twats. But that's not always the right answer. It really depends on the cost-benefit calculation.
Unless they wish to give up and negotiate we carry on supporting their fight as long as the US does - doesn't it boil down to this?
We should continue to support them even if the US does not.
Unless they wish to give up we carry on supporting their fight as long as they want us to. It boils down to this.
I'd like to say Yes - I do really - but with the obvious caveat of "unless it becomes quite clearly futile". As long as the US stays engaged this point should not be reached anytime soon. Maybe Europe alone could replace American support (if they were to disengage) but I'm rather doubtful about that.
No, I reject that caveat.
People were claiming it was quite clearly futile from day one.
It is up to the Ukrainians alone to decide if its futile or not. If they think its not, we should support them 100% and unequivocally.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
I'll have a go.
During the Cold War we didn't feel safe but in retrospect we were. Certainly safer than we are now. We learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. But the two sides were not symmetrical. The West went from strength to strength economically while the East slowly perished because of Nineteen Seventeen And All That. So the West took advantage of the opportunity to sweep across the abandoned battlefield. In those halcyon days Russia was protected by the rest of the Soviet Union and the whole of the Warsaw Pact: now she stands alone (-ish). Things fall apart. We collectively failed to create a post Cold War security structure that sustained everyone in their place. Maybe it was impossible?
Astute readers will notice this argument has nothing to do with Justice, Human Rights, the Laws of War, manifest destiny or self-determination. It is simply concerned with Realpolitik. If we want peace we have to find a 'settlement' even though, in geopolitical terms, there is, ultimately, no such thing. Can it be enforced militarily? I have my doubts.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
To take one example. Biden’s team have spent this term pretending that Trump didn’t kill that Iranian general. We might all agree that it recklessly upended a careful diplomatic process and wish that he hadn’t done it. But he did. And yet Team Biden have been almost as reckless as Trump, by assuming the Ayatollahs would forgive and forget, when that would be totally illogical from their perspective.
Biden has singularly failed to present a strong deterrent or to punish bad behaviour early enough when Iran began pulling at the seams of the Middle Eastern security order. And it started of course with his craven attitude in Afghanistan (it was all trumps fault guv!). And here we are, with the Suez essentially shut to commercial traffic and Britain and America in an unwinnable air campaign in a place none of us give a shit about. Just wait for the unintended spillover to Egypt’s political stability as it’s economy implodes. Arab Spring 2.0 but with a radical slant?
Is the Golden Age of TV drama really over? I dunno
GRISELDA is kinda magnificent. Nothing groundbreaking, but a brilliant example of the classic ‘rise and fall’ of a Scarface-esque drug kingpin. Or queenpin, in her case. And all true?
Is the Golden Age of TV drama really over? I dunno
GRISELDA is kinda magnificent. Nothing groundbreaking, but a brilliant example of the classic ‘rise and fall’ of a Scarface-esque drug kingpin. Or queenpin, in her case. And all true?
8.9/10. Highly recommended
It can’t be over when a new set of Bluey episodes just landed. Poetry.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
I'll have a go.
During the Cold War we didn't feel safe but in retrospect we were. Certainly safer than we are now. We learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. But the two sides were not symmetrical. The West went from strength to strength economically while the East slowly perished because of Nineteen Seventeen And All That. So the West took advantage of the opportunity to sweep across the abandoned battlefield. In those halcyon days Russia was protected by the rest of the Soviet Union and the whole of the Warsaw Pact: now she stands alone (-ish). Things fall apart. We collectively failed to create a post Cold War security structure that sustained everyone in their place. Maybe it was impossible?
Astute readers will notice this argument has nothing to do with Justice, Human Rights, the Laws of War, manifest destiny or self-determination. It is simply concerned with Realpolitik. If we want peace we have to find a 'settlement' even though, in geopolitical terms, there is, ultimately, no such thing. Can it be enforced militarily? I have my doubts.
Will that do?
I’ll have a go at the Real Politik.
1) The Sell Out
We should have sold Ukraine to Russia in return for free gas and oil for a hundred years.
To be paid for by raising the price of gas for everyone else in Europe.
Oh, and some 10s of billions in cash.
What’s not to like?
2) Put it all on Ground Zero
Sell the Ukrainians 50-100 nuclear warheads.
Not modern stuff covered by the joint treaties with the US. The pre agreement designs for fission devices.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
Biden has been a good president in terms of the domestic American economy
Foreign policy wise he is a fucking disaster. As events are now constantly proving
And he ain’t great on immigration, either. Get rid of this drooling idiot
Is the Golden Age of TV drama really over? I dunno
GRISELDA is kinda magnificent. Nothing groundbreaking, but a brilliant example of the classic ‘rise and fall’ of a Scarface-esque drug kingpin. Or queenpin, in her case. And all true?
8.9/10. Highly recommended
I think TV is going to go through a new “golden age” as more and more directors and studios are seeing that people are happy to have a more long form and developed storyline but “when you want it” due to streaming allowing you to binge or set a time that suits.
True detective was great, series one especially, and if you had tried to fit it into a two hour film it would have lost what made it great. “The wire” whilst being a bit old now showed how you could develop almost a “universe” spread out over many series but not be boring.
What tv allows is that brilliant books don’t have to be compressed into two hours anymore but, with modern tech and the amount of skilled talent, each episode has movie quality rather than looking a bit cheap. If you remade the Suchet Poirot now it would crap on the Branagh films but be in good bite sized chunks.
So I think it will be films that are more in danger unless they are special and really do work as a two/three hour hit.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
As has been pointed out the Crown is separate from Parliament and the Government. The Crown Estate has always been held by the Crown, not the government nor Parliament, even if it gives revenues to the Treasury.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
Objectively, Biden is seeking to provide further arms and ammunition to Ukraine, Trump is doing all he can to stop him and the supine GOP is enabling it.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
As has been pointed out the Crown is separate from Parliament and the Government. The Crown Estate has always been held by the Crown, not the government nor Parliament, even if it gives revenues to the Treasury.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Untrue. The Crown, as a concept, exists to separate the state and its property from the physical person and personal property of the King.
Far from being separate from the government, The Crown encompasses parliament, the privy council and the executive, the judiciary, and (in England) the established church.
The analogous construct in other countries would be "the state".
ETA: This briefing from the HoC Library goes into detail
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
Given that, I can't understand why Biden has been allowed a clear run.
Why has a serious challenger not stepped up? Is it deference? Or sentimentality? Has Biden made it clear behind the scenes that he would fight hard enough to leave scorched earth behind him?
One area that I agree with Leon is that PB's approach to the war in the Ukraine is somewhat unnuanced.
The prevailing consensensus here on PB is that the conflict very closely mirrors World War II, with only the occasional visit from real Russian trolls, or real demented Trumpist-Putinists, to put o any dissenting view. In fact the war is not that simple.
PBs approach to the Ukraine war is Putin is bad therefore he must lose so he will lose.
"Putin is bad therefore he must lose" is as far as it goes I am afraid. All bets are off if Putin shill Trump wins the Presidency.
How doltish.
You are engaging in JJ's historical inevitablism. He may lose (by many metric he has already lost) but we have no idea whether he will or not. Harper, whoever the hell they are and wherever the hell they come from, is doing nothing other than articulating the truth.
PB has a weird fixation that because people want something to happen it will happen.
It's bizarro.
I'm unsure where you get this idea that I'm engaging in "historical inevitablism". I'm not.
I want Ukraine to win, and I think the best way of preventing wider conflict is for Ukraine to win. I therefore tend to think that we need to do much more to help Ukraine win.
But do I see a Ukrainian victory as inevitable? Do I heck, and I've never said so.
I have said, however. that I feel that Russia has strategically lost, and it is very hard to see how they get a real 'win' out of this. They already had Crimea and most of the Donbass pre-2022, and the new areas they've gained are not particularly strategic. And the cost in men, material and money has been immense. Worst of all from their point of view, their strategic enemies had spent a few decades spending less and less on their militaries, and Putin's little adventure will probably reverse that. Russia is a reduced entity thanks to Putin, and it could all have been so different.
But I'd argue there's something else we see: "Ukraine cannot win, therefore they shouldn't fight". IMV that's wrong.
It's the critical question. It is up to the Ukrainians to determine whether they fight on and is no one else's business (unless perhaps POTUS thinks by them fighting on it would threaten escalation).
Most conflicts end in negotiation so I don't think it is beyond the pale to ponder whether this one should as well.
I probably said at the outset of the conflict that it would. I probably still think it will. I don't see a resolution in the near term and we have @Sean_F's experts saying it will only be another 2-3 years before Ukraine is in a position to do something or other. And perhaps this is the case. But a lot of people are dying in the meantime.
The trouble from Ukraine's perspective is that a ceasefire now would only be a stay of execution. It's all well and good talking about Nato and EU membership but the former looks increasingly flaky with President Trump on the way and the latter will be far from straightforward eg agriculture.
It depends. If Ukraine receives a lot of support from the West over the course of a two-year ceasefire it could build itself a modern airforce and a well-trained army. And the next round of hostilities could look a lot like the Serb experience of being chucked out of Croatia.
It might be better for Ukraine to choose that approach over trying to do the same during active hostilities.
Whatever Ukraine chooses to do, it will have better options and a greater chance of success the more support we provide, so we absolutely should not be trying to pressure them into a permanent settlement with Russia by reducing that support.
Totally agree with your last paragraph.
As for the alternative approach: a problem is the idea that Ukraine would continue receiving enough western aid after a ceasefire. The moment a ceasefire happens, Russia and its agents will be putting pressure on governments to say: "There's peace; giving Ukraine weapon system x might provoke Russia." Which is what we saw before February 2022. Or: "These weapons systems are expensive. Why should we give them a country at peace?"
IMV Putin still thinks he can get a 'win' out of this war politically, by manipulating foreign governments into not supporting Ukraine.
That's a risk that Ukraine has to weigh up. Which is one reason the security guarantees they have been negotiating with various countries have value. They set out how each country intend to continue supporting Ukraine in the future to improve its security.
I had a look at the UK agreement and it commits the UK to continuing quite a high level of support for the next ten years.
Ukraine have also been working directly with Western arms companies too.
I don't say it's the best approach. I don't know. But a ceasefire isn't necessarily the Russian win that it would have looked like 18 months ago.
Ukraine will well remember the way the west abandoned the undertakings of the Budapest deal, where Ukraine got rid of its nukes in return for defence.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So an effective tax rate of 38% on earned income, and 20% on unearned income.
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So an effective tax rate of 38% on earned income, and 20% on unearned income.
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
Most of his income was from a US based investment fund in a blind trust . It might be innocent but sounds a bit dodgy !
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So an effective tax rate of 38% on earned income, and 20% on unearned income.
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
I don't suppose even the £432k represents earned income. The reporter is amazingly confused.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
Biden has been a good president in terms of the domestic American economy
Foreign policy wise he is a fucking disaster. As events are now constantly proving
And he ain’t great on immigration, either. Get rid of this drooling idiot
I disagree on the economy. He’s spent like a drunken sailor, running a structural deficit that makes Gordon Brown’s attempts look feeble, blowing the worst inflationary bubble since the 1970s (he didn’t start it but boy did he encourage it). He’s turned his back on closer trade with allies. And he’s done nothing for Joe Blue Collar, hence the stickiness of trumps appeal. Take a look at the S&P493 minus the Magnificent 7 and tell me again how the US economy is stronger thanks to his stewardship.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
I think Trump would utterly monster Newsom. Red landslide.
Newsom would be a disaster . He looks very slimy and would crash and burn in the swing states . I’ve said it many times if the Dems want to demolish Trump pick Gretchen Whitmer .
I’m beginning to think the special counsel report and hasty press conference are a Democrat ploy to force Biden’s hand into standing down. Force him to face up to what a liability he is in time for him to crown a successor at the convention.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
I think Trump would utterly monster Newsom. Red landslide.
He would, at the end of the day Democrats chances probably depend more on whether Trump is convicted in any of his criminal cases than on whether Biden or anyone else is their candidate.
Apart from Michelle Obama or maybe Whitmer most would probably do worse than Biden anyway
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
Given that, I can't understand why Biden has been allowed a clear run.
Why has a serious challenger not stepped up? Is it deference? Or sentimentality? Has Biden made it clear behind the scenes that he would fight hard enough to leave scorched earth behind him?
I'm sure Newsom did some polling but basically the primary voters are going to reelect their incumbent election-winning president. You can see this by the way Dean Phillips fell flat. A bigger challenger would have done better than Phillips did but Phillips was a perfectly OK candidate, if the voter appetite had been there he'd be at least making it to double figures.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
Biden has been a good president in terms of the domestic American economy
Foreign policy wise he is a fucking disaster. As events are now constantly proving
And he ain’t great on immigration, either. Get rid of this drooling idiot
I disagree on the economy. He’s spent like a drunken sailor, running a structural deficit that makes Gordon Brown’s attempts look feeble, blowing the worst inflationary bubble since the 1970s (he didn’t start it but boy did he encourage it). He’s turned his back on closer trade with allies. And he’s done nothing for Joe Blue Collar, hence the stickiness of trumps appeal. Take a look at the S&P493 minus the Magnificent 7 and tell me again how the US economy is stronger thanks to his stewardship.
14 million new jobs. 1 m new manufacturing jobs. Unemployment lower than it has been for decades and well below what he inherited. More recently, real wages have been growing sharply. The US economy has grown faster than China's in the last year. The deficit is a smaller share of GDP than he inherited. It is a spectacular economic record reflected in the US stock markets being at record highs. This has been driven in part by a significant but very necessary increase in infrastructure spending being driven forward by Buttigieg.
Even Fox news are now acknowledging this. The US are having a goldilocks soft landing from the recent inflationary blip, they said. This is not a bubble, this is a cracking result.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So Rishi won't starve if he leaves No 10, indeed he could earn more than his PM's salary from investments alone
I’m beginning to think the special counsel report and hasty press conference are a Democrat ploy to force Biden’s hand into standing down. Force him to face up to what a liability he is in time for him to crown a successor at the convention.
Not impossible
Also note how the liberal left media - from CNN to NYT - have all suddenly turned on Biden and are saying “yeah he’s too old, it’s a disaster”
Feels like an internal coup? Let’s hope it is and that it works. Biden will lose to Trump as things stand
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
I think Trump would utterly monster Newsom. Red landslide.
He would, at the end of the day Democrats chances probably depend more on whether Trump is convicted in any of his criminal cases than on whether Biden or anyone else is their candidate.
Apart from Michelle Obama or maybe Whitmer most would probably do worse than Biden anyway
Not that the Democrats would dare. But they’d beat Trump with the right celebrity too. Taylor Swift obvs. Or Matthew McConaughey.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
Biden has been a good president in terms of the domestic American economy
Foreign policy wise he is a fucking disaster. As events are now constantly proving
And he ain’t great on immigration, either. Get rid of this drooling idiot
I disagree on the economy. He’s spent like a drunken sailor, running a structural deficit that makes Gordon Brown’s attempts look feeble, blowing the worst inflationary bubble since the 1970s (he didn’t start it but boy did he encourage it). He’s turned his back on closer trade with allies. And he’s done nothing for Joe Blue Collar, hence the stickiness of trumps appeal. Take a look at the S&P493 minus the Magnificent 7 and tell me again how the US economy is stronger thanks to his stewardship.
14 million new jobs. 1 m new manufacturing jobs. Unemployment lower than it has been for decades and well below what he inherited. More recently, real wages have been growing sharply. The US economy has grown faster than China's in the last year. The deficit is a smaller share of GDP than he inherited. It is a spectacular economic record reflected in the US stock markets being at record highs. This has been driven in part by a significant but very necessary increase in infrastructure spending being driven forward by Buttigieg.
Even Fox news are now acknowledging this. The US are having a goldilocks soft landing from the recent inflationary blip, they said. This is not a bubble, this is a cracking result.
I’ll remind you again if this at the end of the year
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
As has been pointed out the Crown is separate from Parliament and the Government. The Crown Estate has always been held by the Crown, not the government nor Parliament, even if it gives revenues to the Treasury.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Untrue. The Crown, as a concept, exists to separate the state and its property from the physical person and personal property of the King.
Far from being separate from the government, The Crown encompasses parliament, the privy council and the executive, the judiciary, and (in England) the established church.
The analogous construct in other countries would be "the state".
ETA: This briefing from the HoC Library goes into detail
No they are not the Crown except on an absurdly broad interpretation, which would have no relevance to the Crown Estate anyway which has always belonged to the serving monarch.
'The term has been used to describe a physical object or as an alternative way of referring to the monarch in their personal or official capacity. At its most expansive, the Crown has been taken as a proxy for “the government” or what in other countries would be known as “the State”. '
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
Biden has been a good president in terms of the domestic American economy
Foreign policy wise he is a fucking disaster. As events are now constantly proving
And he ain’t great on immigration, either. Get rid of this drooling idiot
I disagree on the economy. He’s spent like a drunken sailor, running a structural deficit that makes Gordon Brown’s attempts look feeble, blowing the worst inflationary bubble since the 1970s (he didn’t start it but boy did he encourage it). He’s turned his back on closer trade with allies. And he’s done nothing for Joe Blue Collar, hence the stickiness of trumps appeal. Take a look at the S&P493 minus the Magnificent 7 and tell me again how the US economy is stronger thanks to his stewardship.
14 million new jobs. 1 m new manufacturing jobs. Unemployment lower than it has been for decades and well below what he inherited. More recently, real wages have been growing sharply. The US economy has grown faster than China's in the last year. The deficit is a smaller share of GDP than he inherited. It is a spectacular economic record reflected in the US stock markets being at record highs. This has been driven in part by a significant but very necessary increase in infrastructure spending being driven forward by Buttigieg.
Even Fox news are now acknowledging this. The US are having a goldilocks soft landing from the recent inflationary blip, they said. This is not a bubble, this is a cracking result.
Us stock markets are primarily being driven by the mega cap tech stocks at present. I wouldnt call Bidens economic record spectacular.
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So an effective tax rate of 38% on earned income, and 20% on unearned income.
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
Quite. And if only we didn't have the Continuity Sunak Party for an Opposition there might be some chance of doing something about it.
As it is, the state will continue to bleed incomes white whilst treating assets and their owners with kid gloves.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
I think Trump would utterly monster Newsom. Red landslide.
He would, at the end of the day Democrats chances probably depend more on whether Trump is convicted in any of his criminal cases than on whether Biden or anyone else is their candidate.
Apart from Michelle Obama or maybe Whitmer most would probably do worse than Biden anyway
Not that the Democrats would dare. But they’d beat Trump with the right celebrity too. Taylor Swift obvs. Or Matthew McConaughey.
Ha, there actually are a lot of Swifties who think that something's up wrt her & politics. The main theory is simply that she's going to endorse Joe, but - what if the Dems are about to pull off the coup of the millennium? No odds available on Betfair... yet?
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
As has been pointed out the Crown is separate from Parliament and the Government. The Crown Estate has always been held by the Crown, not the government nor Parliament, even if it gives revenues to the Treasury.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Untrue. The Crown, as a concept, exists to separate the state and its property from the physical person and personal property of the King.
Far from being separate from the government, The Crown encompasses parliament, the privy council and the executive, the judiciary, and (in England) the established church.
The analogous construct in other countries would be "the state".
ETA: This briefing from the HoC Library goes into detail
No they are not the Crown except on an absurdly broad interpretation, which would have no relevance to the Crown Estate anyway which has always belonged to the serving monarch.
'The term has been used to describe a physical object or as an alternative way of referring to the monarch in their personal or official capacity. At its most expansive, the Crown has been taken as a proxy for “the government” or what in other countries would be known as “the State”. '
So you know better than the HoC LIbrary. As well as (edit: earlier on today) knowing exactly what H. Mountbatten-Windsor will be doing in the next few years in terms of nationality? The teaching at Aber must be seriously good.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
I think Trump would utterly monster Newsom. Red landslide.
He would, at the end of the day Democrats chances probably depend more on whether Trump is convicted in any of his criminal cases than on whether Biden or anyone else is their candidate.
Apart from Michelle Obama or maybe Whitmer most would probably do worse than Biden anyway
Not that the Democrats would dare. But they’d beat Trump with the right celebrity too. Taylor Swift obvs. Or Matthew McConaughey.
Blimey. Biden is now out at 4 to be POTUS on BF, but 1.44 to be Dem nominee.
I’m beginning to think the special counsel report and hasty press conference are a Democrat ploy to force Biden’s hand into standing down. Force him to face up to what a liability he is in time for him to crown a successor at the convention.
Not impossible
Also note how the liberal left media - from CNN to NYT - have all suddenly turned on Biden and are saying “yeah he’s too old, it’s a disaster”
Feels like an internal coup? Let’s hope it is and that it works. Biden will lose to Trump as things stand
Agreed. Echoes of antisemitism and Corbyn in my view - hard to know how much is truth (Biden is actually senile, Corbyn was actually antisemitic) and how much is a stitch up job by a hostile media. But ultimately it doesn’t matter - the narrative has been seized and Biden won’t ever fight it off. Trump will pick and pick and pick at Biden’s supposed senility and depress turnout for Democrats.
They’ve got to roll the dice on another candidate in my view.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
Given that, I can't understand why Biden has been allowed a clear run.
Why has a serious challenger not stepped up? Is it deference? Or sentimentality? Has Biden made it clear behind the scenes that he would fight hard enough to leave scorched earth behind him?
Because there's a long history of primary challenges failing but damaging the incumbent. To do it you'd have to be 100% certain you'd beat Biden and have the backing of your party. Otherwise it would get very messy.
Better to allow Biden to run again, and if he's not up to it in June or July, handpick an alternative who can beat Trump without risking a messy primary season that could end up installing a terrible candidate who delights the Democrat base.
I’m beginning to think the special counsel report and hasty press conference are a Democrat ploy to force Biden’s hand into standing down. Force him to face up to what a liability he is in time for him to crown a successor at the convention.
Not impossible
Also note how the liberal left media - from CNN to NYT - have all suddenly turned on Biden and are saying “yeah he’s too old, it’s a disaster”
Feels like an internal coup? Let’s hope it is and that it works. Biden will lose to Trump as things stand
It's not an internal coup, it's a story. The individual journalists on those papers mostly lean liberal but they don't consider it their job to help liberals win. If anything their business benefits from Trump winning since he provides constant drama and makes liberals consume news.
This is the exact same setup as the Hillary emails: There's actual concrete news about something legal happening, so if you consider yourself a journalist not a hack you have to report on it. And it's a bigger story if you play it up than if you play it down.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
I think Trump would utterly monster Newsom. Red landslide.
He would, at the end of the day Democrats chances probably depend more on whether Trump is convicted in any of his criminal cases than on whether Biden or anyone else is their candidate.
Apart from Michelle Obama or maybe Whitmer most would probably do worse than Biden anyway
Not that the Democrats would dare. But they’d beat Trump with the right celebrity too. Taylor Swift obvs. Or Matthew McConaughey.
Ha, there actually are a lot of Swifties who think that something's up wrt her & politics. The main theory is simply that she's going to endorse Joe, but - what if the Dems are about to pull off the coup of the millennium? No odds available on Betfair... yet?
34 on election day but 35 by inauguration day. A real self made billionaire (take that Donald). Born in a swing state, liberally minded but honorary daughter of the south. The best name recognition among voters of anyone in America. Not part of The Swamp. A highly experienced natural in front of the cameras, the most photogenic candidate certainly since 1960. An army of highly motivated utterly dedicated campaigners. And one of the largest social media followers on earth.
Would she win 50 states? Perhaps not. She’d win 40 though.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Do you think that's what Trump means when he says he will end the war in 24 hours?
No, me neither. So why do you continue to support him?
I'm just trying to provide some objectivity.
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
Biden has been a good president in terms of the domestic American economy
Foreign policy wise he is a fucking disaster. As events are now constantly proving
And he ain’t great on immigration, either. Get rid of this drooling idiot
I disagree on the economy. He’s spent like a drunken sailor, running a structural deficit that makes Gordon Brown’s attempts look feeble, blowing the worst inflationary bubble since the 1970s (he didn’t start it but boy did he encourage it). He’s turned his back on closer trade with allies. And he’s done nothing for Joe Blue Collar, hence the stickiness of trumps appeal. Take a look at the S&P493 minus the Magnificent 7 and tell me again how the US economy is stronger thanks to his stewardship.
14 million new jobs. 1 m new manufacturing jobs. Unemployment lower than it has been for decades and well below what he inherited. More recently, real wages have been growing sharply. The US economy has grown faster than China's in the last year. The deficit is a smaller share of GDP than he inherited. It is a spectacular economic record reflected in the US stock markets being at record highs. This has been driven in part by a significant but very necessary increase in infrastructure spending being driven forward by Buttigieg.
Even Fox news are now acknowledging this. The US are having a goldilocks soft landing from the recent inflationary blip, they said. This is not a bubble, this is a cracking result.
I’ll remind you again if this at the end of the year
Feel free but the economic forecasts for the US are some of the best in the world right now. Of course if the madness that follows in the wake of Trump prevails all bets are off.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
As has been pointed out the Crown is separate from Parliament and the Government. The Crown Estate has always been held by the Crown, not the government nor Parliament, even if it gives revenues to the Treasury.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Untrue. The Crown, as a concept, exists to separate the state and its property from the physical person and personal property of the King.
Far from being separate from the government, The Crown encompasses parliament, the privy council and the executive, the judiciary, and (in England) the established church.
The analogous construct in other countries would be "the state".
ETA: This briefing from the HoC Library goes into detail
No they are not the Crown except on an absurdly broad interpretation, which would have no relevance to the Crown Estate anyway which has always belonged to the serving monarch.
'The term has been used to describe a physical object or as an alternative way of referring to the monarch in their personal or official capacity. At its most expansive, the Crown has been taken as a proxy for “the government” or what in other countries would be known as “the State”. '
So you know better than the HoC LIbrary. As well as (edit: earlier on today) knowing exactly what H. Mountbatten-Windsor will be doing in the next few years in terms of nationality? The teaching at Aber must be seriously good.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
Given that, I can't understand why Biden has been allowed a clear run.
Why has a serious challenger not stepped up? Is it deference? Or sentimentality? Has Biden made it clear behind the scenes that he would fight hard enough to leave scorched earth behind him?
Because there's a long history of primary challenges failing but damaging the incumbent. To do it you'd have to be 100% certain you'd beat Biden and have the backing of your party. Otherwise it would get very messy.
Better to allow Biden to run again, and if he's not up to it in June or July, handpick an alternative who can beat Trump without risking a messy primary season that could end up installing a terrible candidate who delights the Democrat base.
My knowledge of what a surprise pick by the convention would look like comes mostly from reading Gore Vidal's "Golden Age" as a teenager. Yes, it's fiction - but he certainly made it sound... messy.
Could such a thing happen in reality today? Based on that, I don't think so - it would taint whoever was picked, no matter how strongly the party rowed in behind them.
The only potential nominee who might get away with not coming through the primary process would be Harris. And even then, it would need Biden to stand down voluntarily.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Opinions might change if people had to send their daughters and sons.
We've moved off America but fyi I find these numbers quite interesting. They are betfair's implied win chance for various Dem candidates in the event they are the pick (v Trump) in November:
So Biden is seen as a big underdog vs Trump whereas the other 3 are all fancied to beat him. Newsom is viewed as the most electable, then Michelle then Kamala Harris.
And the often floated idea that Kamala is bound to be hammered by Trump? Nope, not per this.
A poll last November showed not much difference between them, Trump beat Biden and Newsom by 4 points and Harris by 5. Though Biden also more likely does better in the rustbelt than Newsom.
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
I think Trump would utterly monster Newsom. Red landslide.
He would, at the end of the day Democrats chances probably depend more on whether Trump is convicted in any of his criminal cases than on whether Biden or anyone else is their candidate.
Apart from Michelle Obama or maybe Whitmer most would probably do worse than Biden anyway
Not that the Democrats would dare. But they’d beat Trump with the right celebrity too. Taylor Swift obvs. Or Matthew McConaughey.
Blimey. Biden is now out at 4 to be POTUS on BF, but 1.44 to be Dem nominee.
I topped up on Biden yesterday at 3.8.
Might go in again.
Donald Trump10/11 to be us president joe biden 5/2.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
As has been pointed out the Crown is separate from Parliament and the Government. The Crown Estate has always been held by the Crown, not the government nor Parliament, even if it gives revenues to the Treasury.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Untrue. The Crown, as a concept, exists to separate the state and its property from the physical person and personal property of the King.
Far from being separate from the government, The Crown encompasses parliament, the privy council and the executive, the judiciary, and (in England) the established church.
The analogous construct in other countries would be "the state".
ETA: This briefing from the HoC Library goes into detail
No they are not the Crown except on an absurdly broad interpretation, which would have no relevance to the Crown Estate anyway which has always belonged to the serving monarch.
'The term has been used to describe a physical object or as an alternative way of referring to the monarch in their personal or official capacity. At its most expansive, the Crown has been taken as a proxy for “the government” or what in other countries would be known as “the State”. '
So you know better than the HoC LIbrary. As well as (edit: earlier on today) knowing exactly what H. Mountbatten-Windsor will be doing in the next few years in terms of nationality? The teaching at Aber must be seriously good.
I literally quoted from the HoC Library there
Very selectively quoted. You ignored the other 69 and 7/8th pages!
BBC: Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary. The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884. He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
So Rishi won't starve if he leaves No 10, indeed he could earn more than his PM's salary from investments alone
All the proof needed that he is working hard out of sense of public service and love of his country and kin.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Opinions might change if people had to send their daughters and sons.
The western order can defang Russian fascism without sending its own sons and daughters, so long as it gives the Ukrainians the materiel they need. If they don’t, then there are perfectly plausible circumstances where Western sons and daughters do indeed find themselves in harms way. But you know that already, which is why you said what you did.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Opinions might change if people had to send their daughters and sons.
But at the risk of sounding cynical about it Ukrainians are dying whilst destroying the Russian forces so that our sons and daughters don't have to. All we have to do is give them the means.
They are grateful but we are the ones who should be grateful. Thanks to their resilience, sacrifice and incredible courage the threat of Russian invasion no longer hangs over all their neighbours. They are finished as a conventional military power for the foreseeable future. Slava Ukraini and thank you.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
I’m beginning to think the special counsel report and hasty press conference are a Democrat ploy to force Biden’s hand into standing down. Force him to face up to what a liability he is in time for him to crown a successor at the convention.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
When you say "all assistance short of fighting". Is there a limit?
The other point I would make, is that there are multiple instances of 'democratic, friendly countries' whom we have failed - most recently and dramatically with the regime in afghanistan, but the situation with the Kurds isn't too brilliant.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Let's look at these one by one:
"The consensus is that Putin is Hitler" I can't remember anyone stating that Putin is Hitler; but there are valid comparisons to be made between them. And many differences as well.
"we are in the run up to the second world war again" Well, we have a bellicose large country by Europe that wants to expand its territory and influence over much of Europe, and is openly stating that. The question is how we can stop that without making the same mistakes made in the mid-to-late 1930s.
"Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost." What other day do you have to stop them? And I'd argue the 'cost' now is much less than it would be later. It would have been cheaper if we'd done it in 2014, or even after Putin's Georgia adventure.
"And any other opinion is giving in to fascism. " No, but there are many people who condone Putin's fascism for various reasons.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
We actually do have a military alliance with them that we signed shortly before the invasion, not to mention to Budapest memorandum. These don’t contain an obligation to fight for Ukraine, but they are formal allies.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
Do you not think you've played a large part in driving away people who disagree with you?
Absolutely not. I love a good argument. That’s why I come here. Yes I can be bruising but I always respect someone who articulately disagrees, and I never whine if someone is nasty
What’s ruined the site is the dead hand of orthodoxy. Plus you’re all a bunch of fucking lawyers and accountants and business dudes and retired IT geeks. Twats
We desperately need more arty types. Poets. Violinists. Dancers. Opera singers. Anyone creative, anyone, literally anyone. Anyone!
But no
Arty types can fuck off they have nothing whatsoever to add to any conversation
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
Err, I've been arguing for a coalition of the willing to finish the job and kick them out of Ukraine.
Which you know is impossible, and is a transparent figleaf to cover up the fact you're criticising the President who is sending Ukraine support and making excuses for the candidate who is trying to block support.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Her saying “vote for Biden” doesn’t do much, especially under the circumstances. But I think she’s savvy enough that with the right team, she’d easily defeat such a poor candidate as Trump. And you can’t say that about many of the party hopefuls on either side of the aisle.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
Interesting argument as far as it goes but the problem is the differential in manpower. Russia has much more of it so can afford more losses. And whilst Ukraine may not have lost as many troops as Russia they have still lost a huge number. Regardless of weapons sent you still need the manpower. Now the way to make up this manpower differential would be to send in NATO troops. That would likely near guarantee victory short of a nuclear conflagaration. But you are unwilling to do this. Why?
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
Interesting argument as far as it goes but the problem is the differential in manpower. Russia has much more of it so can afford more losses. And whilst Ukraine may not have lost as many troops as Russia they have still lost a huge number. Regardless of weapons sent you still need the manpower. Now the way to make up this manpower differential would be to send in NATO troops. That would likely near guarantee victory short of a nuclear conflagaration. But you are unwilling to do this. Why?
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She's the closest thing this century has to those genuine megastars of the past, though. By a long way.
I'm not much of a fan myself, but you surely must admit that her cultural reach is huge. Mainstream media in multiple countries report on the goings-on within her fanbase.
That sort of thing happened regularly with the Beatles, sure - but you can't really say that about any other contemporary act other than maybe BTS or Blackpink.
I think it's obvious that the next generation of royals don't see much less value in the "visibility" work that the last Queen was so keen on.
I've been keeping an eye on the Court Circular for the past 6 months (yeah, interesting, I know...)
Princess Anne does lots of sports, rural, and health-related visits Prince Richard does lots of buildings, engineering, built environment-related visits Prince Edward does some theatre, arts, and youth-related visits
And, er, that's it.
Prince William does virtually none of that stuff, even accounting for time off with his wife being ill. He goes to some dinners, and does a feww investiture ceremonies - the rest of his official engagements tend to be for personal projects like the Earthshot Prize. The contrast between his diary in 2023 and Charles' in, say, 2003 is rather eye-opening.
But who's to say that's a bad thing - if you've got a new university building that needs opened, say, why do you need Prince Richard rather than a Lord Mayor, ex-government minister, or someone from off the telly anyway?
At this point, it looks almost like a hobby for the older ones - or something they do because they've always done it, not because there's much need for it.
I’ve never even heard of Prince Richard.
I do think it’s fascinating, though, these subtle shifts in kingly responsibilities. It’s not obvious to me why William is maintaining a low profile. Is he just lazy?
Richard is the Duke of Gloucester - the King's cousin, I think. Did an architecture course in the 70s, and has been stuck opening shopping centres ever since...
As for William, I know there've been rumours about problems in his personal life - and at the very least his wife must have been very ill for some time to need such a hugely serious operation. But I doubt that's enough have stopped him taking some of Anne/Richard/Edward's more prestigious gigs if he'd felt it was necessary to do so - he just doesn't see the value in it.
Yes, Duke of Gloucester. I just never hear him referred to as Prince Richard, for some reason. I agree with the original notion that we’re frankly short of a few royals. Philip and Zara look the most “papabile” to my eye.
William needs to pull his finger out. The deal is that we pay for their luxury, and they perform their duties like Stakhanovites.
Speaking of which, the King is also the King of NZ. I know he’s due for a visit in November, but we kind of need him more often than every five or six years.
The days of organising the monarchy around the contingencies of boat-plane via BOAC are well and truly over.
Profits of the crown estates and duchies pay for the Prince and Princess of Wales actually, taxpayers pay for nothing more than their security.
The Governor General does the day to day things in NZ for the King and is currently a Maori woman
The crown estates belong to the country, they are not the private property of the monarch.
If we became a republic the crown estates would just be rebranded to something else, just as everything that is currently HM whatever will get rebranded then too.
If we became a republic taxpayers would fund a President and their family direct
They could be fully covered by the 'republic estates' or whatever they're rebranded to and then some since there'd only be one figurehead to fund not an entire sprawling family of them.
Legally arguably not, the crown estates belong to the monarch as corporate sole, just George III surrendered their revenues to the Treasury.
They would also bring in far less tourism revenue and we are moving to a working royals of just the King and Queen and heir and their family anyway, so no different to say the US system of President and First Lady and family and VP and spouse and family
No, you are totally wrong and the law is explicitly clear.
The monarch holds the crown estates by virtue of the crown, they are quite explicitly NOT the private property of the monarch.
If the UK becomes a republic then everything that belongs to 'the crown' will now belong to however the state is now run, not the royal family who quite explicitly do not privately own it.
If we become a republic the private property of the Windsors will remain their private property, but the crown is the states, not theirs.
'The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.' Whoever held the Crown at the time would therefore have a strong legal argument to maintain it, even if some of the revenues still went to the State
No they would not.
The UK state is more than just the government, the crown is part of the state.
If we become a republic, then the crown would be dissolved and everything belong to or answering to it would go to the state however it was dissolved, none of it is or would be any individuals private property.
The Crown is not part of the government either, although the government is appointed by the Crown.
As I said the Crown Estate has never belonged to the government or Parliament, so whoever held the Crown at the time would certainly have a legal case to claim title to it
No, they would not. You don't understand the law or our constitution at all.
The crown is an integral part of the British state.
If the state ceases to be a monarchy then all the roles, responsibilities, obligations, rights etc of the crown get transfered from the crown to whatever replaces it.
The private property of the Windsors is their private property, but the states rights and responsibilities are not.
As has been pointed out the Crown is separate from Parliament and the Government. The Crown Estate has always been held by the Crown, not the government nor Parliament, even if it gives revenues to the Treasury.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Parliament and the Government != the state, and has been pointed out, the Crown is not separate from the state, nor is it private property. The Crown along with Parliament forms key elements of the state.
The Crown is a part of the state, with rights and responsibilities. The Crown Estates forms part of those rights, and the money it spends goes towards partially funding its responsibilities.
If we become a republic those rights and responsibilities don't vanish, they will go towards whatever replaces the Crown in fulfilling those duties, rights and responsibilities.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
When you say "all assistance short of fighting". Is there a limit?
Of course there is, but right now the impact on our budget and our finances is negligible, with a lot of the aid given being "in kind", i.e. using up of old munitions.
And I would argue the long-term benefits of deterring aggression in Europe are pretty enormous.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
When you say "all assistance short of fighting". Is there a limit?
Of course there is, but right now the impact on our budget and our finances is negligible, with a lot of the aid given being "in kind", i.e. using up of old munitions.
And I would argue the long-term benefits of deterring aggression in Europe are pretty enormous.
Those NLAWs were the best value for money tax £££ of my adult life I think
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Lulu campaigned for Thatcher in 1979.
I could be wrong on this, but I think (despite their wealth and their frequent tax dodging), rock stars tend to swing left politically.
Lulu's support of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 does not exactly contradict this.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Madonna in her prime was bigger with a wider fan base.
Sure, but... 50 years ago. Don't they let you have access to Youtube in Moscow?
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Williamglenn and a Russian bot called Harper... anyone else?
There are some on the right in the UK that are so far down the culture war rabbit hole that getting one over Biden and the Libs is more important than the defence of Ukraine and vital British security and defence interests.
I am probably in a 'culture war rabbit hole', but would nonetheless comment as follows:
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Oh, I think Ukraine is very simple.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
Interesting argument as far as it goes but the problem is the differential in manpower. Russia has much more of it so can afford more losses. And whilst Ukraine may not have lost as many troops as Russia they have still lost a huge number. Regardless of weapons sent you still need the manpower. Now the way to make up this manpower differential would be to send in NATO troops. That would likely near guarantee victory short of a nuclear conflagaration. But you are unwilling to do this. Why?
Well, if Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine stops fighting.
It's their people and their call to make, not ours.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
I went to a Taylor Swift concert with my then 11 year old daughter and her 10 year old friend. At the 70,000 Rose Bowl, I ran into the 8 year old girl that shared a desk with my son at school.
I could be wrong, but I think her support skews young.
Biden must be so frustrated to see the US economy doing much better than forecasts and end up with no credit for it .
One can see why he’s reluctant to stand aside , hoping that eventually more Americans appreciate the job he’s done and will look past his obvious issues .
And it’s not such an age thing really . Bernie Sanders is 82 and great in terms of energy and ability to give a speech , I think if Biden just had more energy and wasn’t so frail and gaffe prone the age thing wouldn’t be such an issue .
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
Her saying “vote for Biden” doesn’t do much, especially under the circumstances. But I think she’s savvy enough that with the right team, she’d easily defeat such a poor candidate as Trump. And you can’t say that about many of the party hopefuls on either side of the aisle.
It does very little because people don't take the advice of popstars when choosing how to vote. Likewise, no matter how much people - even young black African Americans - might like Kanye's music, it doesn't mean people will vote for them.
Edit to add: I think popstars have more impact when they do "get out the vote" campaigns.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
Wait: who is saying what about Taylor Swift?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
I went to a Taylor Swift concert with my then 11 year old daughter and her 10 year old friend. At the 70,000 Rose Bowl, I ran into the 8 year old girl that shared a desk with my son at school.
I could be wrong, but I think her support skews young.
You are hoist by your own petard! Because historians will record that RCS1000 paid to attend one of President Swifts early political rallies
BORIS JOHNSON: Putin's interview with his fawning stooge Tucker Carlson was straight out of Hitler's playbook. I pray Americans see through this unholy charade
Biden must be so frustrated to see the US economy doing much better than forecasts and end up with no credit for it .
One can see why he’s reluctant to stand aside , hoping that eventually more Americans appreciate the job he’s done and will look past his obvious issues .
And it’s not such an age thing really . Bernie Sanders is 82 and great in terms of energy and ability to give a speech , I think if Biden just had more energy and wasn’t so frail and gaffe prone the age thing wouldn’t be such an issue .
Biden has been easily the best US President this century.
Interim verdict: Putin looks healthy enough. Quite on top of his brief. Remember when we were told he was dying?
Also: not mad. Obsessive. Autocratic. But not insane. Not immediately off putting. Wily. Cunning. Duplicitous
I sense he really doesn’t want to invade and conquer Eastern Europe. But he really does want a large chunk of Ukraine. And he is genuinely aggrieved about NATO expansion - it’s not a pretext
So a dangerous man but not a Hitler
Interim verdict on tucker: doing the best he can. His main achievement is getting the interview in the first place - creating the envy of all his peers
He also asks some quite devious questions that make Putin look a little credulous or clumsy but he does it in a way that Putin doesn’t notice
It is not 120 minutes of sycophancy. But I am only halfway through
Yet still 50 minutes longer than most people with their heads actually screwed on have managed.
Some of us still remember the days when you were telling us all that Putin would be our saviour.
Another one that didn’t surprise on the upside.
It it a constant source of amazement to me that your only friend is a dog, given the ready wit, personal charm and that sly, playful charisma you regularly exhibit on this site
You are wasted on this site Leon. Your charm charisma and intelligence is too much for the regulars to handle.
I know. I sometimes feel I am more approached in Sverdlovsk than Swindon
A prophet without honour etc
What's happened to you, Leon? Are you OK?
Cambodia. Doing good professional knapping but bereft of social life - a self inflicted monastic solitude which I now possibly regret. Because it makes me reliant on PB for discourse at a time when PB has turned to shit
No wonder so many have fled the site
But I will end up with some excellent flints - I think - and it will all be worth it. Head down. Do the graft
Good work SHOULD be hard
Is PB not just in a lull waiting for some significant political betting to start? The general election could be mere weeks away and the US election is definitely in November. Calm before the storm (and the opportunity to fleece some less savvy punters on the markets?)
No. Absolutely no
It is in a terrible decline
Recall we used to compare it to a pub. You had the regulars, with their cranky obsessions and ancient gossip, you had frequent visitors - sometimes drunk, sometimes high, often amusing - you had passers by with brilliant new stories or total bewilderment. Crucially you had a core of really intelligent open minded people gathered round the bar
It seems to me that open minded core has gone. Now PB resembles a tedious HR meeting dominated by fucking boring lawyers and accountants and IT nerds who insist they are right, won’t allow dissent, and either chase away interesting people or bore everyone else
The wokeness prevails, there is no intellectual curiosity, no surprising new views from that guy on the corner by the slot machine
The only reason I am still here is because i have invested 15 years of conversation in this place and it will be a large wrench to leave, and I am particularly reliant on it out here in Phnom Penh
I will leave it as soon as I can
I think reflects the broader politics. Nobody believes in the Brexit fairy anymore, the idea of supporting the Tories is risible, and Starmer is about to offer the blandest prospectus ever put to the British public. Even the Lib Dems have nothing to say.
The world is pivoting, the kaleidoscope has been shaken, but Britain has given up. For the moment, at least.
Yes. The wider world is definitely part of it. Politics is more polarised so pb is part of that
Also everyone here is just older and crankier perhaps. But fuck knows why I have to respect these geriatric twats - I still travel the world and do stuff - I stay open minded. Pb does not
Hey ho
If I’m still here in a year please please please tease me mercilessly until I am shamed into going. I need to find a replacement forum - it’s not easy. Pb of old was special
I am looking hard
Do you not think you've played a large part in driving away people who disagree with you?
Absolutely not. I love a good argument. That’s why I come here. Yes I can be bruising but I always respect someone who articulately disagrees, and I never whine if someone is nasty
What’s ruined the site is the dead hand of orthodoxy. Plus you’re all a bunch of fucking lawyers and accountants and business dudes and retired IT geeks. Twats
We desperately need more arty types. Poets. Violinists. Dancers. Opera singers. Anyone creative, anyone, literally anyone. Anyone!
But no
Arty types can fuck off they have nothing whatsoever to add to any conversation
Adding nothing whatsoever to any conversation is a high barrier for exclusion.
I think that people are exaggerating the influence of Taylor Swift. Up until the 00's there were genuine megastars that everyone had heard of because the amount of information was limited to what was on TV. I'd guess nowadays that a lot of people have no idea who she is, even though her songs get billions of listens on Spotify and her shows attract 50,000 people per night. She is popular with her fans and has some broader cultural recognition but she is not a ubiquitous megastar in the way that some people imagine.
She has 280 million followers on Instagram. Putting musical influence to one side, she is the Beatles for Millennials.
I'm embarrassed to admit that I could not name a single one of her songs. Just completely passed me by I'm afraid. Obviously the fault is mine.
She has the odd catchy number. Shake It Off. It’s not Paige and Plant. But her musicality is not what this is about. It’s her cross aisle appeal, even across generations.
I just watched the video for Shake it off. I think the word I would use is....banal. But it has had 3.4bn, yes billion views on Youtube so I am clearly wrong.
Comments
During the Cold War we didn't feel safe but in retrospect we were. Certainly safer than we are now. We learned to stop worrying and love the bomb. But the two sides were not symmetrical. The West went from strength to strength economically while the East slowly perished because of Nineteen Seventeen And All That. So the West took advantage of the opportunity to sweep across the abandoned battlefield. In those halcyon days Russia was protected by the rest of the Soviet Union and the whole of the Warsaw Pact: now she stands alone (-ish). Things fall apart. We collectively failed to create a post Cold War security structure that sustained everyone in their place. Maybe it was impossible?
Astute readers will notice this argument has nothing to do with Justice, Human Rights, the Laws of War, manifest destiny or self-determination. It is simply concerned with Realpolitik. If we want peace we have to find a 'settlement' even though, in geopolitical terms, there is, ultimately, no such thing. Can it be enforced militarily? I have my doubts.
Will that do?
The war and other foreign policy disasters are Biden's legacy. People who've psyched themselves into supporting him on the basis that he represents the forces of good and Trump represents the forces of evil are not being rational.
WeThink @wethinkpolling:
Lab’s lead drops six to 16.
🔴 Lab 42% (-3)
🔵 Con 26% (+3)
⚪ Ref 10% (-1)
🟠 LD 10% (+1)
🟢 Green 6% (+1)
🟡 SNP 3% (NC)
Techne UK @techneUK
📊 NEW POLL: CONSERVATIVES GAIN WHILE LABOUR DECLINE
Lab 44% (-1)
Cons 24% (+1)
Lib Dems 10% (=)
Reform 10% (=)
Greens 6% (=)
SNP 3% (=)
Others 3% (=)
YouGov @YouGov
Latest YouGov Westminster voting intention (7-8 Feb)
Con: 21% (-2 from 30-31 Jan)
Lab: 46% (+2)
Lib Dem: 9% (=)
Reform UK: 12% (=)
Green: 7% (+1)
SNP: 3% (=)
Dirty, sleazy Labour/Tories on the slide... (delete as preferred)
Biden has singularly failed to present a strong deterrent or to punish bad behaviour early enough when Iran began pulling at the seams of the Middle Eastern security order. And it started of course with his craven attitude in Afghanistan (it was all trumps fault guv!). And here we are, with the Suez essentially shut to commercial traffic and Britain and America in an unwinnable air campaign in a place none of us give a shit about. Just wait for the unintended spillover to Egypt’s political stability as it’s economy implodes. Arab Spring 2.0 but with a radical slant?
GRISELDA is kinda magnificent. Nothing groundbreaking, but a brilliant example of the classic ‘rise and fall’ of a Scarface-esque drug kingpin. Or queenpin, in her case. And all true?
8.9/10. Highly recommended
1) The Sell Out
We should have sold Ukraine to Russia in return for free gas and oil for a hundred years.
To be paid for by raising the price of gas for everyone else in Europe.
Oh, and some 10s of billions in cash.
What’s not to like?
2) Put it all on Ground Zero
Sell the Ukrainians 50-100 nuclear warheads.
Not modern stuff covered by the joint treaties with the US. The pre agreement designs for fission devices.
Jobs for British workers.
What’s not to like?
Foreign policy wise he is a fucking disaster. As events are now constantly proving
And he ain’t great on immigration, either. Get rid of this drooling idiot
True detective was great, series one especially, and if you had tried to fit it into a two hour film it would have lost what made it great. “The wire” whilst being a bit old now showed how you could develop almost a “universe” spread out over many series but not be boring.
What tv allows is that brilliant books don’t have to be compressed into two hours anymore but, with modern tech and the amount of skilled talent, each episode has movie quality rather than looking a bit cheap. If you remade the Suchet Poirot now it would crap on the Branagh films but be in good bite sized chunks.
So I think it will be films that are more in danger unless they are special and really do work as a two/three hour hit.
In the unlikely event we became a republic therefore the holder of the office of the Crown could still lay claim to its title legally, it would not automatically transfer to Parliament and the government
Michelle Obama would probably be more electable but has shown no intention to run.
Quinnipiac still has Biden ahead though
https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/11/Fox_November-10-13-2023_National_Topline_November-15-Release.pdf
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3889
Far from being separate from the government, The Crown encompasses parliament, the privy council and the executive, the judiciary, and (in England) the established church.
The analogous construct in other countries would be "the state".
ETA: This briefing from the HoC Library goes into detail
Rishi Sunak paid UK tax of £508,308 on earnings of just over £2.2m last year, according to his latest tax summary.
The document, published by Downing Street, showed the prime minister paid £163,364 in tax on a total income of £432,884.
He also paid £359,240 in tax on around £1.8m in capital gains from a US-based investment fund.
?
?
?
?
Why has a serious challenger not stepped up? Is it deference? Or sentimentality? Has Biden made it clear behind the scenes that he would fight hard enough to leave scorched earth behind him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Opinium dropping them into the 30s .
The best thing for Labour is for them to not win either by-election next week .
They need a reality check !
That's one of our country's major problems right there.
Apart from Michelle Obama or maybe Whitmer most would probably do worse than Biden anyway
Even Fox news are now acknowledging this. The US are having a goldilocks soft landing from the recent inflationary blip, they said. This is not a bubble, this is a cracking result.
Not impossible
Also note how the liberal left media - from CNN to NYT - have all suddenly turned on Biden and are saying “yeah he’s too old, it’s a disaster”
Feels like an internal coup? Let’s hope it is and that it works. Biden will lose to Trump as things stand
'The term has been used to describe a physical object or as an alternative way of referring to the
monarch in their personal or official capacity. At its most expansive, the Crown has been taken as a proxy for “the government” or what in other countries would be known as “the State”. '
As it is, the state will continue to bleed incomes white whilst treating assets and their owners with kid gloves.
I topped up on Biden yesterday at 3.8.
Might go in again.
They’ve got to roll the dice on another candidate in my view.
Better to allow Biden to run again, and if he's not up to it in June or July, handpick an alternative who can beat Trump without risking a messy primary season that could end up installing a terrible candidate who delights the Democrat base.
https://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68249835
This is the exact same setup as the Hillary emails: There's actual concrete news about something legal happening, so if you consider yourself a journalist not a hack you have to report on it. And it's a bigger story if you play it up than if you play it down.
Would she win 50 states? Perhaps not. She’d win 40 though.
The discussion about Ukraine on PB is hopeless. The consensus is that Putin is Hitler and we are in the run up to the second world war again, so Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost. And any other opinion is giving in to fascism.
Such comments are useful mainly as evidence of the effectiveness of propaganda, they offer no real insight in to the situation.
Could such a thing happen in reality today? Based on that, I don't think so - it would taint whoever was picked, no matter how strongly the party rowed in behind them.
The only potential nominee who might get away with not coming through the primary process would be Harris. And even then, it would need Biden to stand down voluntarily.
They are grateful but we are the ones who should be grateful. Thanks to their resilience, sacrifice and incredible courage the threat of Russian invasion no longer hangs over all their neighbours. They are finished as a conventional military power for the foreseeable future. Slava Ukraini and thank you.
A democratic, friendly country has been invaded.
We do not have a military alliance with that country, so clearly should not be sending people.
But we absolutely should offer all assistance short of fighting.
Do you have a different opinion?
She's a popstar. Lots of people love her. But popstars have never moved votes. If they did, there wouldn't have been a right wing government elected in the developed world in fifty years.
The other point I would make, is that there are multiple instances of 'democratic, friendly countries' whom we have failed - most recently and dramatically with the regime in afghanistan, but the situation with the Kurds isn't too brilliant.
"The consensus is that Putin is Hitler"
I can't remember anyone stating that Putin is Hitler; but there are valid comparisons to be made between them. And many differences as well.
"we are in the run up to the second world war again"
Well, we have a bellicose large country by Europe that wants to expand its territory and influence over much of Europe, and is openly stating that. The question is how we can stop that without making the same mistakes made in the mid-to-late 1930s.
"Russia has to be stopped by shipping an unlimited amount of military hardware there, at any cost."
What other day do you have to stop them? And I'd argue the 'cost' now is much less than it would be later. It would have been cheaper if we'd done it in 2014, or even after Putin's Georgia adventure.
"And any other opinion is giving in to fascism. "
No, but there are many people who condone Putin's fascism for various reasons.
I'm not much of a fan myself, but you surely must admit that her cultural reach is huge. Mainstream media in multiple countries report on the goings-on within her fanbase.
That sort of thing happened regularly with the Beatles, sure - but you can't really say that about any other contemporary act other than maybe BTS or Blackpink.
Anybody wondering why?
The Crown is a part of the state, with rights and responsibilities. The Crown Estates forms part of those rights, and the money it spends goes towards partially funding its responsibilities.
If we become a republic those rights and responsibilities don't vanish, they will go towards whatever replaces the Crown in fulfilling those duties, rights and responsibilities.
And I would argue the long-term benefits of deterring aggression in Europe are pretty enormous.
Lulu's support of Mrs Thatcher in 1979 does not exactly contradict this.
It's their people and their call to make, not ours.
I could be wrong, but I think her support skews young.
One can see why he’s reluctant to stand aside , hoping that eventually more Americans appreciate the job he’s done and will look past his obvious issues .
And it’s not such an age thing really . Bernie Sanders is 82 and great in terms of energy and ability to give a speech , I think if Biden just had more energy and wasn’t so frail and gaffe prone the age thing wouldn’t be such an issue .
Edit to add:
I think popstars have more impact when they do "get out the vote" campaigns.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-13066311/BORIS-JOHNSON-Putin-Tucker-Carlson-interview-stooge-Hitler-charade.html