I am intrigued, however, by what "for personal reasons" could mean for the heir to the throne.
Needs to pick up the kids/walk the dog/wait in for the plumber/take the ebay package to the post office.
These don't quite ring true.
Something to do with Kate, is my guess, and not in a good way
I hope I am wrong, obvs
I actually LIKE some of the royals (inasmuch as you can like public figures you have met only once or never), and that definitely includes Kate. She is impeccable in the role, despite much sneering and snobbery. She seems to have happy healthy kids, which suggests a good mother
The royals are lucky to have her
bytyh Individually all the royals are extremely nice has been my experience.
As an institution, while I would not change it because we are where we are, I think it does repay some analysis as to relevance and viability in the present day.
Personally, I have always made the analogy that the British royal family is like having a great Gothic cathedral in your back garden, for some long lost dynastic reason
If you were building the house now, you certainly woudn't built it with a bloody cathedral by the garden shed. It is ridiculous, per se
And yet the cathedral is of great antiquity, and is in places very beautiful, and the music at evensong is lovely, and all the family members have been buried in it since 1083, so it kind of embodies you
What you don't do is casually knock it down, and expect to get somethibg better in its stead. A small garden pond with a toad. A couple of gnomes?
Hint: it won't be better
IDK.
Most of us wouldn't get much sunlight, if there were a great cathedral in our back garden. Neighbours would be pretty unimpressed, too.
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
What a horrible attitude - I have no great love for the royal family but I do not wish them harm
I wish they didn't exist - I don't know if that's the same as harm, but I do not care if they live or die and if they all died that would be a sure fire way of us not having a royal family any more.
But that isn't what you said. Wishing they didn't exist as an institution, and therefore as "the monarch" and the "prince of Wales" is entirely fair.
But you did not say that. You said "Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills"
Which absolutely crosses the PB line, to my mind
Where exactly is this line. Could you sketch it out for us so we can be aware of it in future posts.
TIA.
Don't be disingenuous
This site quite successfully polices itself, and one of the unwritten rules is that you do not wish death or serious harm to other PB-ers or significant public figures/politicians
Otherwise the place would soon turn into a sewer where we are all hoping that Keir Starmer gets REDACTED REDACTED
I know this coz I've been moderated for it, after some drunken rant where I went over the top. The moderation was justified, and I apologised to the forum, and you all gracioiusly accepted it
I got 2 likes and zero moderation when I expressed a sincerely held desire for Johnson to die of Covid. You just have to do it with panache.
Dura, I take it no-one ever won your raffle.
Nope. I believe paristonda is worthy of a merit award because they came tantalisingly close with Johnson.
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
I have a heart, so my hope is that William baulks at the prospect of becoming Monarch, and does a runner to join his brother. He clearly doesn't like being in the public eye.
If the two brothers both removed themselves, and their children, from the succession, then the Commons would have to act to avoid a King Andrew, and once you make it clear to people that we've been choosing the Monarch for centuries, they might decide they want to play some part in the process directly.
I think I can agree with that in general - although I would personally argue we should demand democracy for our head of state rather than hope it turns up. But it is clear to me that Wills is not going to abdicate, otherwise he would have made it very clear already.
I'm down with demanding a Republic, but I wish my fellow Republicans would not be so stupid to disgust the people they'd need to convince by wishing death upon the line of succession.
How to win friends and influence people it is not.
But the idea of monarchy is so grotesque - why should I have to pamper the idea that these people are somehow genetically superior, either because of god or breeding, to lead us? People wish death, in a 12 Angry Men way, on people all the time. Claims of deity backed state leadership is some Kim Jong Un shit that we should have left behind the first time we chopped off a kind's head (not that Cromwell was a good person, before people start claiming I'd defend his positions on anything).
The monarch is a well paid mascot. I don’t think most people have an issue with that
And also far preferable to the inevitable President Johnson or President Blair alternative
why - at least they won some form of popularity contest rather than being anointed at birth
And a popularity contest for President resulting in a 52%-48% vote would be unifying?
why must unity be a necessary outcome? No country lasts forever.
Do we *need* a head of state at all? I'd rather not have a President either.
It won't be the same, according to the Continued Identity Theory:
"This solution (proposed by Kate, Ernest et al.) sees an object as staying the same as long as it continuously exists under the same identity, and it is never fully transformed at the same time. For instance, a house, whose front wall is destroyed and replaced at year 1, the ceiling replaced at year 2, et cætera until every part of the house has been replaced. The house will still be designated as being the same. However, if every wall, the floor and the ceiling are destroyed and replaced at the same time, it will be known as a new house."
Is this just a more sophisticated version of "Trigger's broom"?
I have this with one of my NMR instruments. Consists of 3 main parts (magnet, console and autosampler) each has been replaced, some multiple times. Is it still the same instrument?
(No)
Hmm. The Japanese tear down and rebuild certain temples exactly as before every now and then, I believe (because wooden). But still the same temple.
I think you need to keep the core parts. If I strip my mountain bike, keep the frame and put all new components on it, I'd say it's my old bike but improved. If I strip the components off it and put them on a new frame, it's a different bike. I'd say the Japanese temple's core part is its spiritual aspect, the wood is just a component.
My philosophy always tends towards the romantic, so for me Trigger's Broom remains the same broom. The object we perceive exists beyond its physical state.
Other views are available and you're welcome to them.
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
You are wishing serious ill-health and death on fairly blameless human beings. Chas and Wills are not Vlad Putin
That crosses a line and you should apologise and withdraw, before you get moderated
Lol, no. I don't care if monarchs croak, why should I?
Because you make yourself look like a jerk?
Right - because my self worth comes from the opinions of PBers. I find some of the conversation here interesting, although I find much more of it hugely confusing if somewhat enlightening on what and how right wingers think, but I don't really care if people here think I am a bad person for not caring if the king or the prince of wales die.
Nonetheless, you now look like a total jerk. So well done you
I would say he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but I think that'd be unfair: he hasn't grown up yet.
He gives every impression of being a precocious teenager who read some Marx at the age of fifteen, topped up by a sprinkling of Chomsky in Sixth Form, and has since set his philosophy by it to the point it's defined his identity.
He been able to indulge in this ever since because he lives the life of a fairly typical privileged bien pensant left-winger - living in a house provided gratis by his Dad, and working in a cosseted academic bubble - so he's never had to revisit his assumptions, and simply proclaims them ever more loudly and angrily when they are challenged, usually with a lot of turgid verbiage.
One sort of feels sorry for him, really.
Apparently the guy who treatened me to a fist fight in the honour of his maj wants to talk about my loud and angry words. Is this how your therapist suggested you deal with the urge to "take this outside" - create a fantasy that means you can contain the anger rather than act on it? I personally prefer therapies that take aim at the causes of things, but sometimes what Pratchett calls "headology" works.
I love how the whole "I live in a house my Dad owns" thing has become a tale of the inherent wealth and privilege I have an not an outcome of my mother's death and years of me fighting with my dad about not treating it like a tomb to her memory - which included the best part of a year of my life when I was literally homeless and sofa surfing because I refused to move back in with him and couldn't go elsewhere - but hey ho, here's what comes of brevity.
Again, no one is challenging any of this. We are merely pointing out that it is not Site Etiquette to wish ill health and death on other pb-ers and public figures (with the possible exception of execrable tyrants like Putin). Chas and Wills might be odious symbols of privilege, and represent an institution you detest, nonetheless they are human beings and your words were cruel and unpleasant
And consider this, you've got me, not exactly know for mincing words, and Nick Palmer (your only other fellow communist on the site, albeit ex in his case) both advising you to reword and say sorry
Just say sorry! Withdraw. It's not hard, and it's good for the soul, and then you can go back to giving us your often quite interesting and decisive opinions, even if I generally disagree
But I'm not sorry for what I said.
Also, again, I prefer it when you call me an idiot or something (which you typically do when you've decided that the woke mind virus is going to be the end of civilisation or such and I say how ridiculous that is) rather than calling me interesting.
I think your comments were unkind and fell short of the standards of civilised debate that we should aim for on here. My personal view is that hoping for the death of public figures coarsens the debate. It especially behoves those on the left to maintain the standards of decent political discourse because the alternative is an arena where the rich and powerful will always dominate, having more resources to devote to violence. The left can only win through the power of rational argument.
"standards of civilised debate that we should aim for on here"? How about bollocks.
The death of a monarch if you are an anti-monarchist is presumably critical to your political philosophy.
Why? The Kings is dead, long live the King etc.
If you want to abolish the Monarchy, that more about getting a majority in the Country and in the Commons.
I am intrigued, however, by what "for personal reasons" could mean for the heir to the throne.
Needs to pick up the kids/walk the dog/wait in for the plumber/take the ebay package to the post office.
These don't quite ring true.
Something to do with Kate, is my guess, and not in a good way
I hope I am wrong, obvs
I actually LIKE some of the royals (inasmuch as you can like public figures you have met only once or never), and that definitely includes Kate. She is impeccable in the role, despite much sneering and snobbery. She seems to have happy healthy kids, which suggests a good mother
The royals are lucky to have her
bytyh Individually all the royals are extremely nice has been my experience.
As an institution, while I would not change it because we are where we are, I think it does repay some analysis as to relevance and viability in the present day.
Personally, I have always made the analogy that the British royal family is like having a great Gothic cathedral in your back garden, for some long lost dynastic reason
If you were building the house now, you certainly woudn't built it with a bloody cathedral by the garden shed. It is ridiculous, per se
And yet the cathedral is of great antiquity, and is in places very beautiful, and the music at evensong is lovely, and all the family members have been buried in it since 1083, so it kind of embodies you
What you don't do is casually knock it down, and expect to get somethibg better in its stead. A small garden pond with a toad. A couple of gnomes?
Hint: it won't be better
IDK.
Most of us wouldn't get much sunlight, if there were a great cathedral in our back garden. Neighbours would be pretty unimpressed, too.
Yes, you can extend the analogy
It casts a shadow on some. It might cause subsidence. Neighbours gawp or snigger, tho occasionally they look on jealously when we put on a wedding or funeral much better than they ever can
And the odd passer by gives us money so they can admire the spandrels and the cloisters
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
I am intrigued, however, by what "for personal reasons" could mean for the heir to the throne.
Needs to pick up the kids/walk the dog/wait in for the plumber/take the ebay package to the post office.
These don't quite ring true.
Something to do with Kate, is my guess, and not in a good way
I hope I am wrong, obvs
I actually LIKE some of the royals (inasmuch as you can like public figures you have met only once or never), and that definitely includes Kate. She is impeccable in the role, despite much sneering and snobbery. She seems to have happy healthy kids, which suggests a good mother
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
I have a heart, so my hope is that William baulks at the prospect of becoming Monarch, and does a runner to join his brother. He clearly doesn't like being in the public eye.
If the two brothers both removed themselves, and their children, from the succession, then the Commons would have to act to avoid a King Andrew, and once you make it clear to people that we've been choosing the Monarch for centuries, they might decide they want to play some part in the process directly.
I think I can agree with that in general - although I would personally argue we should demand democracy for our head of state rather than hope it turns up. But it is clear to me that Wills is not going to abdicate, otherwise he would have made it very clear already.
I'm down with demanding a Republic, but I wish my fellow Republicans would not be so stupid to disgust the people they'd need to convince by wishing death upon the line of succession.
How to win friends and influence people it is not.
But the idea of monarchy is so grotesque - why should I have to pamper the idea that these people are somehow genetically superior, either because of god or breeding, to lead us? People wish death, in a 12 Angry Men way, on people all the time. Claims of deity backed state leadership is some Kim Jong Un shit that we should have left behind the first time we chopped off a kind's head (not that Cromwell was a good person, before people start claiming I'd defend his positions on anything).
The monarch is a well paid mascot. I don’t think most people have an issue with that
And also far preferable to the inevitable President Johnson or President Blair alternative
More like President Rowling/Lineker/Clarkson.
I doubt it, most republics have politicians or ex politicians as head of state and the above would be worse than the King too with no royal wedding, jubilee revenue either and all 3 of them are also politically divisive on social media especially with their tweets
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
Yep - I cannot imagine the pain for the kids if anything was to happen to her. Its all a bit mysterious, and I suppose fair enough - health is a private matter.
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
Yep - I cannot imagine the pain for the kids if anything was to happen to her. Its all a bit mysterious, and I suppose fair enough - health is a private matter.
It could literally end the royal family, the grief could shatter them all
UGH. I wish I had never seen that rumour. Sorry for bringing it here
Feels a bit like trying to claim that conflating all Jews with the Israeli government is wrong but not antisemitic, or all Catholics with paedophile priests is wrong but not anti-Catholic.
Maybe MoonRabbit's right and the flames will die down, but I'm not sure this line is going to help much.
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
I have a heart, so my hope is that William baulks at the prospect of becoming Monarch, and does a runner to join his brother. He clearly doesn't like being in the public eye.
If the two brothers both removed themselves, and their children, from the succession, then the Commons would have to act to avoid a King Andrew, and once you make it clear to people that we've been choosing the Monarch for centuries, they might decide they want to play some part in the process directly.
I think I can agree with that in general - although I would personally argue we should demand democracy for our head of state rather than hope it turns up. But it is clear to me that Wills is not going to abdicate, otherwise he would have made it very clear already.
I'm down with demanding a Republic, but I wish my fellow Republicans would not be so stupid to disgust the people they'd need to convince by wishing death upon the line of succession.
How to win friends and influence people it is not.
But the idea of monarchy is so grotesque - why should I have to pamper the idea that these people are somehow genetically superior, either because of god or breeding, to lead us? People wish death, in a 12 Angry Men way, on people all the time. Claims of deity backed state leadership is some Kim Jong Un shit that we should have left behind the first time we chopped off a kind's head (not that Cromwell was a good person, before people start claiming I'd defend his positions on anything).
The monarch is a well paid mascot. I don’t think most people have an issue with that
And also far preferable to the inevitable President Johnson or President Blair alternative
why - at least they won some form of popularity contest rather than being anointed at birth
There is no great merit in popularity contests or elections, Hitler, Putin and Mugabe and Trump all won elections at some point. The only merit in democratic elections for our government is, as Churchill said 'it is a bad system but better than the other alternatives.'
The merit of constitutional monarchy is precisely it avoids yet another politician in the head of state role and means the monarch doesn't have to engage in party politics
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
That's really not funny. One reason why Sunak should call a May election is because it's irresponsible to have the death of a King, the accession of a new King, a Trump POTUS victory and a General Election in the same three months. I know he wants to get "PM (UK): 2022-2024 (2 years)" on his CV, but there is such a thing as taking the piss.
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
Immigration from 3rd world countries to the UK is higher now than when Labour were in office. Sunak has the highest recorded immigration figures of any UK Prime Minister. All this guff about how Sunak is doing something now rings hollow. Only yesterday we had the news that plans to train more doctors in the UK have been undermined. If your concern is to reduce immigration, I don't know who you should vote for, but it's clearly not the Conservative Party.
Looking past the fact that 148grss seems to be the type of borderline maniac loner/future serial killer that makes this site an embarrassment to be on, is Prince William actually ill?
Me, a republican, who cares not for the life of the monarch: potential stochastic terrorist.
Posters here, calling immigration an invasion and often going off on wild right wing rants, including literally asking me to solve our disagreements with a fist fight: the reputable norms of PB.
You’re actively wishing for them to have a serious, painful illness that kills them, then saying you’ll laugh if it happens. You sound like a complete nutter who should be on meds/under some kind of surveillance; the next Scarlet Blake. Either that or a lonely troll
I didn't say painful - that's your interpretation. And I said it would be funny because of the outcome - Prince Regent Harry or Andrew - not because of their deaths (although I would not be sad at the prospect of their deaths).
But sure, the people here who want to build a wall at Calais and let children die in Gaza by their thousands or want to round up every Muslim and chuck them out of the country are the people who truly care about the sanctity of life and the impact that words have on another human who we briefly stand in brotherhood with during our short time on this small blue dot, not me, who hates one family of rich fucks who claim the right to rule me based on their bloodline. I am, indeed, the awful degenerate here.
Yes, you are.
The king has cancer, most people would agree that’s a painful illness, and you are hoping he dies from it, and say you’ll laugh when it happens. I’m not making this up, you’ve said it
It is perfectly legitimate, on a political betting site, to wish for the demise of a particular political system. As for the pain well you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and in the broad sweep of history it doesn't really matter how someone actually died at the sharp end.
The potential demise of King Charles III and the monarchy as an institution really aren't the same.
Absolutely not. Le Roi est mort, etc. But if it turned out that for example (and I don't think it will, just as it didn't when QEII died) that the demise of KCIII provokes a debate about the future of the monarchy then that will have moved the "cause" on somewhat.
The demise of KCIII might actually boost the popularity of the monarchy, given William and Kate poll better than Charles and Camilla. Not that it would matter to me as I support a hereditary, unelected monarchy on principle
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
I've heard similarly dark rumours about Chuck 3
I'm not looking. I don't want him to die. I think he deserves a longer reign than that.
I’ve wondered a little about Williams stress levels / mental health. Not so long ago he was comfortably down the line of succession and suddenly there it beckons. And at a time that his wife has unspecified but clearly serious health problems, he still has three children at highly impressionable ages, and a wider family that has reached historic levels of fractiousness. Heavy is the head that’s about to wear the crown perhaps…
Difficult to understand the mindset that pours scorn and envy his way, I certainly wouldn’t swap my life for his.
Feels a bit like trying to claim that conflating all Jews with the Israeli government is wrong but not antisemitic, or all Catholics with paedophile priests is wrong but not anti-Catholic.
Maybe MoonRabbit's right and the flames will die down, but I'm not sure this line is going to help much.
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
I've heard similarly dark rumours about Chuck 3
I'm not looking. I don't want him to die. I think he deserves a longer reign than that.
Yes, it troubles me - humanly and politically - more instabilty we do not need
The idea of anything happening to Kate makes me faintly nauseous. Maybe I am just getting old and sentimental
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
Kensington Palace has said she is OK and recovering well and hopefully will be fine. Even if the worst happens she will not be monarch though anymore than Diana would have been, only William and George will be
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
I've heard similarly dark rumours about Chuck 3
I'm not looking. I don't want him to die. I think he deserves a longer reign than that.
If Leonadamus has heard dark rumours about King Prince Charles, surely that is cause for celebration! He'll undoubtedly now live to be 100.
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
That's really not funny. One reason why Sunak should call a May election is because it's irresponsible to have the death of a King, the accession of a new King, a Trump POTUS victory and a General Election in the same three months. I know he wants to get "PM (UK): 2022-2024 (2 years)" on his CV, but there is such a thing as taking the piss.
It's not irresponsible at all - people need to get over themselves. The American election does not have any bearing on the UK. Nor have we had any indication that Charles is dying. Rumours are always going to swirl when a prominent figure goes into hospital, how could they not?
Looking past the fact that 148grss seems to be the type of borderline maniac loner/future serial killer that makes this site an embarrassment to be on, is Prince William actually ill?
Me, a republican, who cares not for the life of the monarch: potential stochastic terrorist.
Posters here, calling immigration an invasion and often going off on wild right wing rants, including literally asking me to solve our disagreements with a fist fight: the reputable norms of PB.
You’re actively wishing for them to have a serious, painful illness that kills them, then saying you’ll laugh if it happens. You sound like a complete nutter who should be on meds/under some kind of surveillance; the next Scarlet Blake. Either that or a lonely troll
I didn't say painful - that's your interpretation. And I said it would be funny because of the outcome - Prince Regent Harry or Andrew - not because of their deaths (although I would not be sad at the prospect of their deaths).
But sure, the people here who want to build a wall at Calais and let children die in Gaza by their thousands or want to round up every Muslim and chuck them out of the country are the people who truly care about the sanctity of life and the impact that words have on another human who we briefly stand in brotherhood with during our short time on this small blue dot, not me, who hates one family of rich fucks who claim the right to rule me based on their bloodline. I am, indeed, the awful degenerate here.
Yes, you are.
The king has cancer, most people would agree that’s a painful illness, and you are hoping he dies from it, and say you’ll laugh when it happens. I’m not making this up, you’ve said it
It is perfectly legitimate, on a political betting site, to wish for the demise of a particular political system. As for the pain well you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and in the broad sweep of history it doesn't really matter how someone actually died at the sharp end.
The potential demise of King Charles III and the monarchy as an institution really aren't the same.
Absolutely not. Le Roi est mort, etc. But if it turned out that for example (and I don't think it will, just as it didn't when QEII died) that the demise of KCIII provokes a debate about the future of the monarchy then that will have moved the "cause" on somewhat.
The demise of KCIII might actually boost the popularity of the monarchy, given William and Kate poll better than Charles and Camilla. Not that it would matter to me as I support a hereditary, unelected monarchy on principle
So who would you have chosen - Stephen or Matilda?
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
Immigration from 3rd world countries to the UK is higher now than when Labour were in office. Sunak has the highest recorded immigration figures of any UK Prime Minister. All this guff about how Sunak is doing something now rings hollow. Only yesterday we had the news that plans to train more doctors in the UK have been undermined. If your concern is to reduce immigration, I don't know who you should vote for, but it's clearly not the Conservative Party.
It is the most bizarre thing ever (evah). Base your entire electoral strategy around stopping a few hundred people crossing the channel (to claim asylum) and at the same time welcome hundreds of thousands of people through myriad other channels.
I am now starting to see how the Tories end up with less than 100 seats.
The later that realisation comes to the general public the better for Labour though. Straw in the wind, I was at the lunch table with colleagues today and one expressed a hope that Labour wouldn't have such a large landslide that it would render the opposition too weak. That's the sort of sentiment that could appeal to a lot of soft Tory voters and, if Sunak has his wits about him, could benefit them in an election.
It won't be the same, according to the Continued Identity Theory:
"This solution (proposed by Kate, Ernest et al.) sees an object as staying the same as long as it continuously exists under the same identity, and it is never fully transformed at the same time. For instance, a house, whose front wall is destroyed and replaced at year 1, the ceiling replaced at year 2, et cætera until every part of the house has been replaced. The house will still be designated as being the same. However, if every wall, the floor and the ceiling are destroyed and replaced at the same time, it will be known as a new house."
Is this just a more sophisticated version of "Trigger's broom"?
I have this with one of my NMR instruments. Consists of 3 main parts (magnet, console and autosampler) each has been replaced, some multiple times. Is it still the same instrument?
(No)
Hmm. The Japanese tear down and rebuild certain temples exactly as before every now and then, I believe (because wooden). But still the same temple.
I think you need to keep the core parts. If I strip my mountain bike, keep the frame and put all new components on it, I'd say it's my old bike but improved. If I strip the components off it and put them on a new frame, it's a different bike. I'd say the Japanese temple's core part is its spiritual aspect, the wood is just a component.
My 944 cafe racer has the gearbox and frame left from original, everything else replaced. Afaicr the DVLA go by frame & engine numbers, any change of which they need to be notified. The frames of these models have a tendency to crack at the headstock so it may be on the list at some time in the future. I would tend to think of it as 'my' bike even then.
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
If you’re spreading it, the odds are heavily in her favour, which is a relief.
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
I have sympathy with the argument that the Tories have failed on immigration, but there are severe issue within the Home Office that are perhaps causing even more of an issue.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate 1. The UK’s asylum grant rate at the initial decision stage was nearly three times that of France (72% compared with 25%) in 2021, a year during which 28,500 people came to the UK from France in boats. The UK grant rate is now a permissive outlier compared with most of Europe and, by September 2022, had risen by more than 40 percentage points since 2016
That's the Home Office failing in their duties, and stimulating boat crossings by so doing.
I’ve wondered a little about Williams stress levels / mental health. Not so long ago he was comfortably down the line of succession and suddenly there it beckons. And at a time that his wife has unspecified but clearly serious health problems, he still has three children at highly impressionable ages, and a wider family that has reached historic levels of fractiousness. Heavy is the head that’s about to wear the crown perhaps…
Difficult to understand the mindset that pours scorn and envy his way, I certainly wouldn’t swap my life for his.
Yes, I just can’t buy the idea that the lives of the Royal Family are so fantastic that we should hate them for it; they’re like creatures in a zoo, I would rather have the worst parts of my life on loop than swap places with them
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
I have sympathy with the argument that the Tories have failed on immigration, but there are severe issue within the Home Office that are perhaps causing even more of an issue.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate 1. The UK’s asylum grant rate at the initial decision stage was nearly three times that of France (72% compared with 25%) in 2021, a year during which 28,500 people came to the UK from France in boats. The UK grant rate is now a permissive outlier compared with most of Europe and, by September 2022, had risen by more than 40 percentage points since 2016
That's the Home Office failing in their duties, and stimulating boat crossings by so doing.
And aren't the issues within the Home Office the responsibility of the Government that runs the Home Office?
Quite funny that after raging at someone chortling at the prospect of dead royals, the royalists are now feverishly torturing themselves at the prospect of dead royals.
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
I've heard similarly dark rumours about Chuck 3
I'm not looking. I don't want him to die. I think he deserves a longer reign than that.
If Leonadamus has heard dark rumours about King Prince Charles, surely that is cause for celebration! He'll undoubtedly now live to be 100.
Private Eye were hinting at a year or two in their last edition
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
Yep - I cannot imagine the pain for the kids if anything was to happen to her. Its all a bit mysterious, and I suppose fair enough - health is a private matter.
It could literally end the royal family, the grief could shatter them all
UGH. I wish I had never seen that rumour. Sorry for bringing it here
Well, not unlike Finland, all you have brought is a rumour of a rumour, so no harm done!
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
I've heard similarly dark rumours about Chuck 3
I'm not looking. I don't want him to die. I think he deserves a longer reign than that.
I was in the US when the Queen died, and it dominated the mainstream media for days over there. I will be in the US again this autumn, and wouldn’t wish a repeat.
I’ve wondered a little about Williams stress levels / mental health. Not so long ago he was comfortably down the line of succession and suddenly there it beckons. And at a time that his wife has unspecified but clearly serious health problems, he still has three children at highly impressionable ages, and a wider family that has reached historic levels of fractiousness. Heavy is the head that’s about to wear the crown perhaps…
Difficult to understand the mindset that pours scorn and envy his way, I certainly wouldn’t swap my life for his.
Yes, I just can’t buy the idea that the lives of the Royal Family are so fantastic that we should hate them for it; they’re like creatures in a zoo, I would rather have the worst parts of my life on loop than swap places with them
Because they are the head of a system which means that you don't get to have 100,000 acres in Northumberland while Ralph Percy does.
I mean like death or the universe we all realise it's there but don't spend every day worrying about it, but is it right that Ralph should have this while others go to foodbanks.
I am now starting to see how the Tories end up with less than 100 seats.
The later that realisation comes to the general public the better for Labour though. Straw in the wind, I was at the lunch table with colleagues today and one expressed a hope that Labour wouldn't have such a large landslide that it would render the opposition too weak. That's the sort of sentiment that could appeal to a lot of soft Tory voters and, if Sunak has his wits about him, could benefit them in an election.
There were a few such back in 1992, and possibly tipped the balance for Major ? There was certainly a "fool me twice" feeling about in '97 which mitigated the effect.
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
Immigration from 3rd world countries to the UK is higher now than when Labour were in office. Sunak has the highest recorded immigration figures of any UK Prime Minister. All this guff about how Sunak is doing something now rings hollow. Only yesterday we had the news that plans to train more doctors in the UK have been undermined. If your concern is to reduce immigration, I don't know who you should vote for, but it's clearly not the Conservative Party.
It is the most bizarre thing ever (evah). Base your entire electoral strategy around stopping a few hundred people crossing the channel (to claim asylum) and at the same time welcome hundreds of thousands of people through myriad other channels.
Right wing politics nowadays is all about symbolism and very little about reality.
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
I have a heart, so my hope is that William baulks at the prospect of becoming Monarch, and does a runner to join his brother. He clearly doesn't like being in the public eye.
If the two brothers both removed themselves, and their children, from the succession, then the Commons would have to act to avoid a King Andrew, and once you make it clear to people that we've been choosing the Monarch for centuries, they might decide they want to play some part in the process directly.
I think I can agree with that in general - although I would personally argue we should demand democracy for our head of state rather than hope it turns up. But it is clear to me that Wills is not going to abdicate, otherwise he would have made it very clear already.
I'm down with demanding a Republic, but I wish my fellow Republicans would not be so stupid to disgust the people they'd need to convince by wishing death upon the line of succession.
How to win friends and influence people it is not.
But the idea of monarchy is so grotesque - why should I have to pamper the idea that these people are somehow genetically superior, either because of god or breeding, to lead us? People wish death, in a 12 Angry Men way, on people all the time. Claims of deity backed state leadership is some Kim Jong Un shit that we should have left behind the first time we chopped off a kind's head (not that Cromwell was a good person, before people start claiming I'd defend his positions on anything).
The monarch is a well paid mascot. I don’t think most people have an issue with that
And also far preferable to the inevitable President Johnson or President Blair alternative
why - at least they won some form of popularity contest rather than being anointed at birth
And a popularity contest for President resulting in a 52%-48% vote would be unifying?
why must unity be a necessary outcome? No country lasts forever.
Nah, some things go on to the crack of doom:
"Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo. Down! Thy crown does sear mine eyeballs. And thy hair, Thou other gold-bound brow, is like the first. A third is like the former.—Filthy hags, Why do you show me this?—A fourth? Start, eyes! What, will the line stretch out to th’ crack of doom? Another yet? A seventh? I’ll see no more. And yet the eighth appears who bears a glass Which shows me many more, and some I see That twofold balls and treble scepters carry. Horrible sight! Now I see ’tis true, For the blood-boltered Banquo smiles upon me And points at them for his."
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
I have a heart, so my hope is that William baulks at the prospect of becoming Monarch, and does a runner to join his brother. He clearly doesn't like being in the public eye.
If the two brothers both removed themselves, and their children, from the succession, then the Commons would have to act to avoid a King Andrew, and once you make it clear to people that we've been choosing the Monarch for centuries, they might decide they want to play some part in the process directly.
I think I can agree with that in general - although I would personally argue we should demand democracy for our head of state rather than hope it turns up. But it is clear to me that Wills is not going to abdicate, otherwise he would have made it very clear already.
I'm down with demanding a Republic, but I wish my fellow Republicans would not be so stupid to disgust the people they'd need to convince by wishing death upon the line of succession.
How to win friends and influence people it is not.
But the idea of monarchy is so grotesque - why should I have to pamper the idea that these people are somehow genetically superior, either because of god or breeding, to lead us? People wish death, in a 12 Angry Men way, on people all the time. Claims of deity backed state leadership is some Kim Jong Un shit that we should have left behind the first time we chopped off a kind's head (not that Cromwell was a good person, before people start claiming I'd defend his positions on anything).
The monarch is a well paid mascot. I don’t think most people have an issue with that
And also far preferable to the inevitable President Johnson or President Blair alternative
why - at least they won some form of popularity contest rather than being anointed at birth
And a popularity contest for President resulting in a 52%-48% vote would be unifying?
why must unity be a necessary outcome? No country lasts forever.
Nah, some things go on to the crack of doom:
"Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo. Down! Thy crown does sear mine eyeballs. And thy hair, Thou other gold-bound brow, is like the first. A third is like the former.—Filthy hags, Why do you show me this?—A fourth? Start, eyes! What, will the line stretch out to th’ crack of doom? Another yet? A seventh? I’ll see no more. And yet the eighth appears who bears a glass Which shows me many more, and some I see That twofold balls and treble scepters carry. Horrible sight! Now I see ’tis true, For the blood-boltered Banquo smiles upon me And points at them for his."
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
I have sympathy with the argument that the Tories have failed on immigration, but there are severe issue within the Home Office that are perhaps causing even more of an issue.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate 1. The UK’s asylum grant rate at the initial decision stage was nearly three times that of France (72% compared with 25%) in 2021, a year during which 28,500 people came to the UK from France in boats. The UK grant rate is now a permissive outlier compared with most of Europe and, by September 2022, had risen by more than 40 percentage points since 2016
That's the Home Office failing in their duties, and stimulating boat crossings by so doing.
And aren't the issues within the Home Office the responsibility of the Government that runs the Home Office?
They are, but these are politicians who get crucified if they tell people to paint over some Mickey Mouse murals, are subject to outrage when they dare to move someone on at the Treasury, and get investigated and sacked for throwing a piece of tomato in a bin with intent. It is arguable that politicians have all the responsibility, but very little actual power when it comes to their departments, so it's not surprising that they sometimes appear to be commentators not ministers. Starmer shows every sign of wanting to chuck even more power to bureaucrats.
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
That's really not funny. One reason why Sunak should call a May election is because it's irresponsible to have the death of a King, the accession of a new King, a Trump POTUS victory and a General Election in the same three months. I know he wants to get "PM (UK): 2022-2024 (2 years)" on his CV, but there is such a thing as taking the piss.
It's not irresponsible at all - people need to get over themselves. The American election does not have any bearing on the UK. Nor have we had any indication that Charles is dying. Rumours are always going to swirl when a prominent figure goes into hospital, how could they not?
There's a line from The Crown: "Our job is to calm more crises than we create". Modern politics seems to be coping with crises by running and screaming and making things worse, the current Israel/Hamas conflict being a case in point. I appreciate Sunak has a legitimate wish to win the election, and that's fair enough, but he also has a duty to govern well and that includes succession. He won't be any more of a failure if he goes in May instead of November.
Quite funny that after raging at someone chortling at the prospect of dead royals, the royalists are now feverishly torturing themselves at the prospect of dead royals.
Yes, it's so difficult to distingish between a PB-er wishing serious illness and death on members of the royal family, and other PB-ers being personally and/or politically upset by the possibility of the same royals being very ill, and dying
I get confused by these two things all the time: People who like others to die, people who really don't
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
I have a heart, so my hope is that William baulks at the prospect of becoming Monarch, and does a runner to join his brother. He clearly doesn't like being in the public eye.
If the two brothers both removed themselves, and their children, from the succession, then the Commons would have to act to avoid a King Andrew, and once you make it clear to people that we've been choosing the Monarch for centuries, they might decide they want to play some part in the process directly.
I think I can agree with that in general - although I would personally argue we should demand democracy for our head of state rather than hope it turns up. But it is clear to me that Wills is not going to abdicate, otherwise he would have made it very clear already.
I'm down with demanding a Republic, but I wish my fellow Republicans would not be so stupid to disgust the people they'd need to convince by wishing death upon the line of succession.
How to win friends and influence people it is not.
But the idea of monarchy is so grotesque - why should I have to pamper the idea that these people are somehow genetically superior, either because of god or breeding, to lead us? People wish death, in a 12 Angry Men way, on people all the time. Claims of deity backed state leadership is some Kim Jong Un shit that we should have left behind the first time we chopped off a kind's head (not that Cromwell was a good person, before people start claiming I'd defend his positions on anything).
The monarch is a well paid mascot. I don’t think most people have an issue with that
And also far preferable to the inevitable President Johnson or President Blair alternative
why - at least they won some form of popularity contest rather than being anointed at birth
And a popularity contest for President resulting in a 52%-48% vote would be unifying?
why must unity be a necessary outcome? No country lasts forever.
Nah, some things go on to the crack of doom:
"Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo. Down! Thy crown does sear mine eyeballs. And thy hair, Thou other gold-bound brow, is like the first. A third is like the former.—Filthy hags, Why do you show me this?—A fourth? Start, eyes! What, will the line stretch out to th’ crack of doom? Another yet? A seventh? I’ll see no more. And yet the eighth appears who bears a glass Which shows me many more, and some I see That twofold balls and treble scepters carry. Horrible sight! Now I see ’tis true, For the blood-boltered Banquo smiles upon me And points at them for his."
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
I have sympathy with the argument that the Tories have failed on immigration, but there are severe issue within the Home Office that are perhaps causing even more of an issue.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate 1. The UK’s asylum grant rate at the initial decision stage was nearly three times that of France (72% compared with 25%) in 2021, a year during which 28,500 people came to the UK from France in boats. The UK grant rate is now a permissive outlier compared with most of Europe and, by September 2022, had risen by more than 40 percentage points since 2016
That's the Home Office failing in their duties, and stimulating boat crossings by so doing.
And aren't the issues within the Home Office the responsibility of the Government that runs the Home Office?
They are, but these are politicians who get crucified if they tell people to paint over some Mickey Mouse murals, are subject to outrage when they dare to move someone on at the Treasury, and get investigated and sacked for throwing a piece of tomato in a bin with intent. It is arguable that politicians have all the responsibility, but very little actual power when it comes to their departments, so it's not surprising that they sometimes appear to be commentators not ministers. Starmer shows every sign of wanting to chuck even more power to bureaucrats.
They've had 14 years to deal with the matter. Fourteen years. That's longer than two World War IIs. Tories need to stop moaning about the Blob and actually deliver on something if they want any chance of being re-elected.
I am now starting to see how the Tories end up with less than 100 seats.
The later that realisation comes to the general public the better for Labour though. Straw in the wind, I was at the lunch table with colleagues today and one expressed a hope that Labour wouldn't have such a large landslide that it would render the opposition too weak. That's the sort of sentiment that could appeal to a lot of soft Tory voters and, if Sunak has his wits about him, could benefit them in an election.
I have thought for some time that the prospect of a landslide Labour win may make some voters uneasy and vote accordingly
Certainly I do not think talk of conservative down to 100 or less seats is not particularly a good thing for Labour and I would expect Starmer will do everything to quash the idea
I’ve wondered a little about Williams stress levels / mental health. Not so long ago he was comfortably down the line of succession and suddenly there it beckons. And at a time that his wife has unspecified but clearly serious health problems, he still has three children at highly impressionable ages, and a wider family that has reached historic levels of fractiousness. Heavy is the head that’s about to wear the crown perhaps…
Difficult to understand the mindset that pours scorn and envy his way, I certainly wouldn’t swap my life for his.
Second in line, as he was from the moment he was born, is “comfortably down the line of succession”?
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
I have a heart, so my hope is that William baulks at the prospect of becoming Monarch, and does a runner to join his brother. He clearly doesn't like being in the public eye.
If the two brothers both removed themselves, and their children, from the succession, then the Commons would have to act to avoid a King Andrew, and once you make it clear to people that we've been choosing the Monarch for centuries, they might decide they want to play some part in the process directly.
I think I can agree with that in general - although I would personally argue we should demand democracy for our head of state rather than hope it turns up. But it is clear to me that Wills is not going to abdicate, otherwise he would have made it very clear already.
I'm down with demanding a Republic, but I wish my fellow Republicans would not be so stupid to disgust the people they'd need to convince by wishing death upon the line of succession.
How to win friends and influence people it is not.
But the idea of monarchy is so grotesque - why should I have to pamper the idea that these people are somehow genetically superior, either because of god or breeding, to lead us? People wish death, in a 12 Angry Men way, on people all the time. Claims of deity backed state leadership is some Kim Jong Un shit that we should have left behind the first time we chopped off a kind's head (not that Cromwell was a good person, before people start claiming I'd defend his positions on anything).
The monarch is a well paid mascot. I don’t think most people have an issue with that
And also far preferable to the inevitable President Johnson or President Blair alternative
why - at least they won some form of popularity contest rather than being anointed at birth
And a popularity contest for President resulting in a 52%-48% vote would be unifying?
why must unity be a necessary outcome? No country lasts forever.
Nah, some things go on to the crack of doom:
"Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo. Down! Thy crown does sear mine eyeballs. And thy hair, Thou other gold-bound brow, is like the first. A third is like the former.—Filthy hags, Why do you show me this?—A fourth? Start, eyes! What, will the line stretch out to th’ crack of doom? Another yet? A seventh? I’ll see no more. And yet the eighth appears who bears a glass Which shows me many more, and some I see That twofold balls and treble scepters carry. Horrible sight! Now I see ’tis true, For the blood-boltered Banquo smiles upon me And points at them for his."
If Shakespeare said it who can doubt it?
Wasn't he just blowing smoke up James I's arse ?
Presumably we can add that to Jamie Saxt's proclivities.
Chaz has six months according to rumours on the unimpeachable source of TikTok.
If he times it right we could get the US election/civil war, a general election, the Strictly final and another Statty Fyoonz all within a few weeks next winter. We've got the Olympics and another counter-offensive to keep us busy until that Gotterdammerung.
That's really not funny. One reason why Sunak should call a May election is because it's irresponsible to have the death of a King, the accession of a new King, a Trump POTUS victory and a General Election in the same three months. I know he wants to get "PM (UK): 2022-2024 (2 years)" on his CV, but there is such a thing as taking the piss.
It's not irresponsible at all - people need to get over themselves. The American election does not have any bearing on the UK. Nor have we had any indication that Charles is dying. Rumours are always going to swirl when a prominent figure goes into hospital, how could they not?
There's a line from The Crown: "Our job is to calm more crises than we create". Modern politics seems to be coping with crises by running and screaming and making things worse, the current Israel/Hamas conflict being a case in point. I appreciate Sunak has a legitimate wish to win the election, and that's fair enough, but he also has a duty to govern well and that includes succession. He won't be any more of a failure if he goes in May instead of November.
I agree about us making things worse, but I think what's needed is a a dose of common sense, and a little detatchment from events, especially overseas events. We can quite easily manage all those things at once, and the election of the President isn't even 'a thing'. Would they move their election because of anything that happened in the UK? Of course not and neither should we.
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
Yep - I cannot imagine the pain for the kids if anything was to happen to her. Its all a bit mysterious, and I suppose fair enough - health is a private matter.
It could literally end the royal family, the grief could shatter them all
UGH. I wish I had never seen that rumour. Sorry for bringing it here
Well, not unlike Finland, all you have brought is a rumour of a rumour, so no harm done!
i think the Finland Rumour needs to be slowly let out of its cage. I will DM you in the next few days
Quite funny that after raging at someone chortling at the prospect of dead royals, the royalists are now feverishly torturing themselves at the prospect of dead royals.
Yes, it's so difficult to distingish between a PB-er wishing serious illness and death on members of the royal family, and other PB-ers being personally and/or politically upset by the possibility of the same royals being very ill, and dying
I get confused by these two things all the time: People who like others to die, people who really don't
True, only one of them is steeped in maudlin hysteria.
It won't be the same, according to the Continued Identity Theory:
"This solution (proposed by Kate, Ernest et al.) sees an object as staying the same as long as it continuously exists under the same identity, and it is never fully transformed at the same time. For instance, a house, whose front wall is destroyed and replaced at year 1, the ceiling replaced at year 2, et cætera until every part of the house has been replaced. The house will still be designated as being the same. However, if every wall, the floor and the ceiling are destroyed and replaced at the same time, it will be known as a new house."
Is this just a more sophisticated version of "Trigger's broom"?
I have this with one of my NMR instruments. Consists of 3 main parts (magnet, console and autosampler) each has been replaced, some multiple times. Is it still the same instrument?
(No)
Hmm. The Japanese tear down and rebuild certain temples exactly as before every now and then, I believe (because wooden). But still the same temple.
I think you need to keep the core parts. If I strip my mountain bike, keep the frame and put all new components on it, I'd say it's my old bike but improved. If I strip the components off it and put them on a new frame, it's a different bike. I'd say the Japanese temple's core part is its spiritual aspect, the wood is just a component.
The Prince of Wales has pulled out of a memorial service due to a personal matter, Kensington Palace has said.
William had been due to attend a memorial service for the late King Constantine of Greece at Windsor Castle.
Kensington Palace would not elaborate further but said the Princess of Wales, who is recovering from abdominal surgery, continues to be doing well.
The Prince of Wales called the Greek royal family who are attending the service to let them know he was unable to attend.
The late King Constantine of Greece, who died in January last year, was William's godfather.
I'm not convinced that the King's cancer is trivial - I think it might be rather serious. No evidence, just a gut feel.
No idea of what was wrong with Catherine (hysterectomy would be likely?) but its concerning that her recovery seems a bit slow.
I fear you could be right
The fact he was reported as weeping at the "get well" letters is concerning. We can't afford to lose more royals. Eeek
I've never liked the chap. He's always struck me as profoundly thick, and I've had a story related from a colleague who knew one of his tutors who said the same. But he had to wait an age for his 'turn', and only got it with loss of his mother, and may well be about to go too, so he has my sympathies.
But you know, there are plenty more Royals. Wills and Kat knocked out an heir and two spares, and there is always Andrew...
Well, there are a few people I don't particularly like, but I wouldn't shrug off the news that they had a horrible form of terminal cancer. It's a terrible fate for them and devastating for their families.
No-one deserves that. Not your worst enemy.
I wish him a full recovery.
Same, he’s a husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle etc.
Whose had enormous wealth and privilege his whole life - I don't know him neither do I particularly need to care what kind of bum cancer he does or doesn't have that will shuffle him off this mortal coil like everyone else.
I find it funny that the whole "well you have to remember they're a human being" argument gets trotted out when people with immense wealth or power are dying and some people aren't arse licking on their way out, but when people are homeless or are fleeing a country and just trying to survive or are being bombed to death that is met by a mere shrug. People crossing the channel are husbands, fathers, mothers, daughters etc. but on any day here you can probably find someone who would cheer their boat sinking and demand them to be flogged if they did make it to our soil.
Here's hoping something is seriously wrong with Chaz and Wills, so we enter the funniest timeline of King George and Prince Regent Harry or Prince Regent Andrew.
I have a heart, so my hope is that William baulks at the prospect of becoming Monarch, and does a runner to join his brother. He clearly doesn't like being in the public eye.
If the two brothers both removed themselves, and their children, from the succession, then the Commons would have to act to avoid a King Andrew, and once you make it clear to people that we've been choosing the Monarch for centuries, they might decide they want to play some part in the process directly.
I think I can agree with that in general - although I would personally argue we should demand democracy for our head of state rather than hope it turns up. But it is clear to me that Wills is not going to abdicate, otherwise he would have made it very clear already.
I'm down with demanding a Republic, but I wish my fellow Republicans would not be so stupid to disgust the people they'd need to convince by wishing death upon the line of succession.
How to win friends and influence people it is not.
But the idea of monarchy is so grotesque - why should I have to pamper the idea that these people are somehow genetically superior, either because of god or breeding, to lead us? People wish death, in a 12 Angry Men way, on people all the time. Claims of deity backed state leadership is some Kim Jong Un shit that we should have left behind the first time we chopped off a kind's head (not that Cromwell was a good person, before people start claiming I'd defend his positions on anything).
The monarch is a well paid mascot. I don’t think most people have an issue with that
And also far preferable to the inevitable President Johnson or President Blair alternative
why - at least they won some form of popularity contest rather than being anointed at birth
And a popularity contest for President resulting in a 52%-48% vote would be unifying?
why must unity be a necessary outcome? No country lasts forever.
Nah, some things go on to the crack of doom:
"Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo. Down! Thy crown does sear mine eyeballs. And thy hair, Thou other gold-bound brow, is like the first. A third is like the former.—Filthy hags, Why do you show me this?—A fourth? Start, eyes! What, will the line stretch out to th’ crack of doom? Another yet? A seventh? I’ll see no more. And yet the eighth appears who bears a glass Which shows me many more, and some I see That twofold balls and treble scepters carry. Horrible sight! Now I see ’tis true, For the blood-boltered Banquo smiles upon me And points at them for his."
If Shakespeare said it who can doubt it?
Wasn't he just blowing smoke up James I's arse ?
Presumably we can add that to Jamie Saxt's proclivities.
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
I have sympathy with the argument that the Tories have failed on immigration, but there are severe issue within the Home Office that are perhaps causing even more of an issue.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate 1. The UK’s asylum grant rate at the initial decision stage was nearly three times that of France (72% compared with 25%) in 2021, a year during which 28,500 people came to the UK from France in boats. The UK grant rate is now a permissive outlier compared with most of Europe and, by September 2022, had risen by more than 40 percentage points since 2016
That's the Home Office failing in their duties, and stimulating boat crossings by so doing.
And aren't the issues within the Home Office the responsibility of the Government that runs the Home Office?
They are, but these are politicians who get crucified if they tell people to paint over some Mickey Mouse murals, are subject to outrage when they dare to move someone on at the Treasury, and get investigated and sacked for throwing a piece of tomato in a bin with intent. It is arguable that politicians have all the responsibility, but very little actual power when it comes to their departments, so it's not surprising that they sometimes appear to be commentators not ministers. Starmer shows every sign of wanting to chuck even more power to bureaucrats.
They've had 14 years to deal with the matter. Fourteen years. That's longer than two World War IIs. Tories need to stop moaning about the Blob and actually deliver on something if they want any chance of being re-elected.
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
I have sympathy with the argument that the Tories have failed on immigration, but there are severe issue within the Home Office that are perhaps causing even more of an issue.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate 1. The UK’s asylum grant rate at the initial decision stage was nearly three times that of France (72% compared with 25%) in 2021, a year during which 28,500 people came to the UK from France in boats. The UK grant rate is now a permissive outlier compared with most of Europe and, by September 2022, had risen by more than 40 percentage points since 2016
That's the Home Office failing in their duties, and stimulating boat crossings by so doing.
And aren't the issues within the Home Office the responsibility of the Government that runs the Home Office?
They are, but these are politicians who get crucified if they tell people to paint over some Mickey Mouse murals, are subject to outrage when they dare to move someone on at the Treasury, and get investigated and sacked for throwing a piece of tomato in a bin with intent. It is arguable that politicians have all the responsibility, but very little actual power when it comes to their departments, so it's not surprising that they sometimes appear to be commentators not ministers. Starmer shows every sign of wanting to chuck even more power to bureaucrats.
They've had 14 years to deal with the matter. Fourteen years. That's longer than two World War IIs. Tories need to stop moaning about the Blob and actually deliver on something if they want any chance of being re-elected.
A rare agreement than me, tho from an entirely different perspective
The Tories have had a decade and a half to get a grip on the entire Woke Establishment, they singularly failed, it is their fault
We will now have to endure even more Wokeness from bloody Labour
I am now starting to see how the Tories end up with less than 100 seats.
The later that realisation comes to the general public the better for Labour though. Straw in the wind, I was at the lunch table with colleagues today and one expressed a hope that Labour wouldn't have such a large landslide that it would render the opposition too weak. That's the sort of sentiment that could appeal to a lot of soft Tory voters and, if Sunak has his wits about him, could benefit them in an election.
I have thought for some time that the prospect of a landslide Labour win may make some voters uneasy and vote accordingly
Certainly I do not think talk of conservative down to 100 or less seats is not particularly a good thing for Labour and I would expect Starmer will do everything to quash the idea
I think there's a happy medium that works best for Labour: enough confidence they stand a realistic chance of winning a majority that people feel compelled to come out and ensure it happens and don't spend too much time thinking about hung parliaments (and people like to back the winner too), but not enough confidence that people don't bother voting.
A foregone conclusion would probably suppress both Labour and Tory turnout. It might though help the Lib Dems in their targets as people feel safe to give the government a kicking without adding to Labour's landslide.
Do Labour deny the policy changes they plan? After we finally limit the flow of immigration with Sunak's new limits, is Starmer going to open the flood gates again?
We've not seen the flow of immigration limited yet. The Tories frequently promise things on immigration that don't happen. The flood gates are at a record level of openness under the Tories.
I will be surprised if immigration in 2025 under a new Labour government isn't lower than 2023's figure.
Yes, because 2023 was a spike because of Hong Kongers and Ukrainians. The new income thresholds aren't a promise, they have been enacted into policy and will come live in April. Labour will open the floodgates again and it will be worse every year. And it won't be skilled, educated Hong Kongers. It will be arranged brides from the Indian subcontinent.
Yes, 2022-3 are probably going to turn out to be a spike, for those reasons and more.
The new income thresholds are real. It's a promise that the policy will achieve its aims.
I see nothing (credible) to suggest that "Labour will open the floodgates". Immigration from India has increased hugely over the course of the last 14 years of Conservative governance, so if that concerns you, don't vote Conservative.
Labour have said they will take asylum seekers from France. They will eliminate the Rwanda policy, removing a disincentive for economic migration through the asylum process. They are going to allow foreign care workers to bring all their dependents from them.
And that is the stuff we know about so far. Starmer is noticeably vague when asked about reintroducing open immigration from the EU. The floodgates will open again, just when Sunak has brought in policies to finally close them.
The idea of taking asylum seekers from France is within an agreement around people coming over on boats. The most successful thing Sunak did to reduce small boat numbers was the bilateral agreement with Albania. Labour want to do more bilateral agreements.
The Rwanda policy isn't disincentivising anyone -- don't make me laugh!
Can't those working in care already bring dependents with them?
We had open immigration from the EU for many years, and the total immigration was below what we've had since Brexit. If you want lower immigration, going back to Brexit arrangements is a step in the right direction.
If you are reducing boat numbers by taking more directly from France, that defeats the point. And the Rwanda policy is likely to substantially reduce numbers - as the Henry Jackson calculations show. The main issue is left leaning types doing everything they can to block it.
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
I have sympathy with the argument that the Tories have failed on immigration, but there are severe issue within the Home Office that are perhaps causing even more of an issue.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate 1. The UK’s asylum grant rate at the initial decision stage was nearly three times that of France (72% compared with 25%) in 2021, a year during which 28,500 people came to the UK from France in boats. The UK grant rate is now a permissive outlier compared with most of Europe and, by September 2022, had risen by more than 40 percentage points since 2016
That's the Home Office failing in their duties, and stimulating boat crossings by so doing.
And aren't the issues within the Home Office the responsibility of the Government that runs the Home Office?
They are, but these are politicians who get crucified if they tell people to paint over some Mickey Mouse murals, are subject to outrage when they dare to move someone on at the Treasury, and get investigated and sacked for throwing a piece of tomato in a bin with intent. It is arguable that politicians have all the responsibility, but very little actual power when it comes to their departments, so it's not surprising that they sometimes appear to be commentators not ministers. Starmer shows every sign of wanting to chuck even more power to bureaucrats.
They've had 14 years to deal with the matter. Fourteen years. That's longer than two World War IIs. Tories need to stop moaning about the Blob and actually deliver on something if they want any chance of being re-elected.
The main reason the Tories haven't achieved anything in office is that they've failed on maintenance of aim, a key element of military strategy.
For all that I criticised Osborne's aims and methods, he at least had a strategy and mostly stuck to it for six years. In the eight years since the Tories have made headless chickens look calm, ordered and methodical.
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
Yep - I cannot imagine the pain for the kids if anything was to happen to her. Its all a bit mysterious, and I suppose fair enough - health is a private matter.
It could literally end the royal family, the grief could shatter them all
UGH. I wish I had never seen that rumour. Sorry for bringing it here
I mean the death of a mother for little kids is one of the most awful things you can go through, speaking from experience. What would be worse than just that is having to do it in the spotlight of media attention and the belief that you have a duty to God and Country to keep your personal feelings in check so that you can keep up the façade that you somehow need to be better than the plebs to justify your rule of them. If this were true this should make you want Wills to rule himself and his kids out of succession even more...
If we're gonna get royal and sentimental, I just heard a dark rumour about Kate
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
Yep - I cannot imagine the pain for the kids if anything was to happen to her. Its all a bit mysterious, and I suppose fair enough - health is a private matter.
It could literally end the royal family, the grief could shatter them all
UGH. I wish I had never seen that rumour. Sorry for bringing it here
Well, not unlike Finland, all you have brought is a rumour of a rumour, so no harm done!
i think the Finland Rumour needs to be slowly let out of its cage. I will DM you in the next few days
And me please. That one has driven me mad for too long!
Looking past the fact that 148grss seems to be the type of borderline maniac loner/future serial killer that makes this site an embarrassment to be on, is Prince William actually ill?
Me, a republican, who cares not for the life of the monarch: potential stochastic terrorist.
Posters here, calling immigration an invasion and often going off on wild right wing rants, including literally asking me to solve our disagreements with a fist fight: the reputable norms of PB.
You’re actively wishing for them to have a serious, painful illness that kills them, then saying you’ll laugh if it happens. You sound like a complete nutter who should be on meds/under some kind of surveillance; the next Scarlet Blake. Either that or a lonely troll
I didn't say painful - that's your interpretation. And I said it would be funny because of the outcome - Prince Regent Harry or Andrew - not because of their deaths (although I would not be sad at the prospect of their deaths).
But sure, the people here who want to build a wall at Calais and let children die in Gaza by their thousands or want to round up every Muslim and chuck them out of the country are the people who truly care about the sanctity of life and the impact that words have on another human who we briefly stand in brotherhood with during our short time on this small blue dot, not me, who hates one family of rich fucks who claim the right to rule me based on their bloodline. I am, indeed, the awful degenerate here.
Yes, you are.
The king has cancer, most people would agree that’s a painful illness, and you are hoping he dies from it, and say you’ll laugh when it happens. I’m not making this up, you’ve said it
It is perfectly legitimate, on a political betting site, to wish for the demise of a particular political system. As for the pain well you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs and in the broad sweep of history it doesn't really matter how someone actually died at the sharp end.
The potential demise of King Charles III and the monarchy as an institution really aren't the same.
Absolutely not. Le Roi est mort, etc. But if it turned out that for example (and I don't think it will, just as it didn't when QEII died) that the demise of KCIII provokes a debate about the future of the monarchy then that will have moved the "cause" on somewhat.
The demise of KCIII might actually boost the popularity of the monarchy, given William and Kate poll better than Charles and Camilla. Not that it would matter to me as I support a hereditary, unelected monarchy on principle
So who would you have chosen - Stephen or Matilda?
Or William III or James VII, come to think of it. The latter was undoubtedly the legitimate one on the criteria of the time.
Comments
Most of us wouldn't get much sunlight, if there were a great cathedral in our back garden. Neighbours would be pretty unimpressed, too.
Other views are available and you're welcome to them.
If you want to abolish the Monarchy, that more about getting a majority in the Country and in the Commons.
It casts a shadow on some. It might cause subsidence. Neighbours gawp or snigger, tho occasionally they look on jealously when we put on a wedding or funeral much better than they ever can
And the odd passer by gives us money so they can admire the spandrels and the cloisters
As for dependents, it has been a major source of unskilled migrants over the decades. If you are from some third world country, get a job in a care home on minimum wage, and then bring your teen bride and a brood of kids into the country. Sunak has sensibly limited but Starmer wants to reopen it. It is obviously going to be the route certain Labour constituencies use to bring across the extended family.
Bloody hell, she needs to survive. One, if you're monarchist, she is pivotal, she basically keeps the show going, and she does everything right, and she is a commoner with that link to reality
Even if you're a republican and you despise the royals, on a human level - imagine - if something happened to her - another dead young mother after Diana - eeek. Those poor kids. Let us hope this is all utter nonsense
UGH. I wish I had never seen that rumour. Sorry for bringing it here
The prime minister responded to these questions yesterday, he doesn’t believe that the individual is a racist but … the language he used was wrong and it’s unacceptable obviously to conflate all Muslims with Islamist extremism or the extreme ideology of Islamism. That’s why the PM regarded those comments as wrong and unacceptable.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/27/lee-anderson-sadiq-khan-conservatives-islamophobia-post-office-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65ddd5ae8f088d4b8fb18ae2#block-65ddd5ae8f088d4b8fb18ae2
Feels a bit like trying to claim that conflating all Jews with the Israeli government is wrong but not antisemitic, or all Catholics with paedophile priests is wrong but not anti-Catholic.
Maybe MoonRabbit's right and the flames will die down, but I'm not sure this line is going to help much.
The merit of constitutional monarchy is precisely it avoids yet another politician in the head of state role and means the monarch doesn't have to engage in party politics
Difficult to understand the mindset that pours scorn and envy his way, I certainly wouldn’t swap my life for his.
The idea of anything happening to Kate makes me faintly nauseous. Maybe I am just getting old and sentimental
I shall return to packing and contemplating AI
...
...
The King's Physician.
And he ain't saying shit.
https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/511/recent-change-in-the-uk-asylum-grant-rate
1. The UK’s asylum grant rate at the initial decision stage was nearly three times that of France (72% compared with 25%) in 2021, a year during which 28,500 people came to the UK from France in boats. The UK grant rate is now a permissive outlier compared with most of Europe and, by September 2022, had risen by more than 40 percentage points since 2016
That's the Home Office failing in their duties, and stimulating boat crossings by so doing.
Will you apologise?
No, fuck off.
Ban him!
I mean like death or the universe we all realise it's there but don't spend every day worrying about it, but is it right that Ralph should have this while others go to foodbanks.
There was certainly a "fool me twice" feeling about in '97 which mitigated the effect.
"Thou art too like the spirit of Banquo. Down!
Thy crown does sear mine eyeballs. And thy hair,
Thou other gold-bound brow, is like the first.
A third is like the former.—Filthy hags,
Why do you show me this?—A fourth? Start, eyes!
What, will the line stretch out to th’ crack of doom?
Another yet? A seventh? I’ll see no more.
And yet the eighth appears who bears a glass
Which shows me many more, and some I see
That twofold balls and treble scepters carry.
Horrible sight! Now I see ’tis true,
For the blood-boltered Banquo smiles upon me
And points at them for his."
If Shakespeare said it who can doubt it?
His application to be allowed to appeal the Jean Carroll award without a bond has been refused, at least for now.
I get confused by these two things all the time: People who like others to die, people who really don't
Certainly I do not think talk of conservative down to 100 or less seats is not particularly a good thing for Labour and I would expect Starmer will do everything to quash the idea
The Tories have had a decade and a half to get a grip on the entire Woke Establishment, they singularly failed, it is their fault
We will now have to endure even more Wokeness from bloody Labour
Gawd elp us
A foregone conclusion would probably suppress both Labour and Tory turnout. It might though help the Lib Dems in their targets as people feel safe to give the government a kicking without adding to Labour's landslide.
For all that I criticised Osborne's aims and methods, he at least had a strategy and mostly stuck to it for six years. In the eight years since the Tories have made headless chickens look calm, ordered and methodical.
NEW THREAD