Just a change around from their last polling in March.
A majority 53% of people think the Queen should remain in her role for life, compared to 33% who think she should abdicate. Asked specifically about what should happen if the Queen were to become too ill to carry out her duties, 48% think she should then abdicate, 43% think she should continue as Queen
Well in that situation I imaging Charles would become Regent while the Queen remains technically on the throne.
See my post downthread. Salience has its relevance, but it is only part of the story - it's about calculating the significance of leads on given topics in a 2 party system
If Charles is King, Camilla is the Queen. Period. It's called a monarchy !
Yeah I know that, the idea that she would become Princess Consort is misleading, because she will just become Queen! I was just wondering which way opinion was going...
If Charles is King, Camilla is the Queen. Period. It's called a monarchy !
Now the gender discrimination has been removed, in the sense that William and Kate's first-born, whether male or female, will become heir, shouldn't Prince Philip be the King?
If Charles is King, Camilla is the Queen. Period. It's called a monarchy !
Now the gender discrimination has been removed, in the sense that William and Kate's first-born, whether male or female, will become heir, shouldn't Prince Philip be the King?
What will it do for Scottish Independence movement if The Duke of Edinburgh becomes King?
If Charles is King, Camilla is the Queen. Period. It's called a monarchy !
Now the gender discrimination has been removed, in the sense that William and Kate's first-born, whether male or female, will become heir, shouldn't Prince Philip be the King?
It's a tragic case, but I fail to see why the spare room subsidy is an evil and wicked thing whereas the same policy for non-state property is acceptable (I believe it's been the case for private accommodation for years and was begun under Labour).
I suppose if the government banned state-funded homeopathy (which I would wholeheartedly support) and someone killed themselves and blamed the government for it we'd have the same sort of response.
To be honest, I was somewhat unsure about posting this. I'm not very comfortable having a discussion about policy with the backdrop of such a personal tragedy.
We've had all the arguments over the bedroom tax many times already.
very long post deleted
I would rather we avoid rehearsing these same arguments about the bedroom tax with an added argument over whether it caused a suicide. It's never that simple. Perhaps this is one of those times to take advantage of the anonymity of the internet - I'm never likely to meet any of you, and so it is easier to talk of these things.
I once had to go to A&E for stitches for self-inflicted knife wounds. Things had been pretty fraught with my daughter's mother for a while before then for a variety of reasons, but the thing that tipped me over the edge that evening was an argument about a tin of mackerel. When I opened the tin of mackerel my daughter's mother declared that it looked like a brain, but I disagreed. She could not accept that I would have a different opinion about the visual similarity between a brain and a tin of mackerel (in tomato sauce) and I was not willing to pretend to change my mind to humour her. So amidst all the other problems we were struggling to deal with we contrived to have an enormous row about a tin of mackerel.
It was the seeming futility of the situation I had found myself in, where even expressing a minor difference of opinion could provoke a massive disturbance, that temporarily convinced me that there was no hope, and no escape to be had except for that afforded by hurting myself as much as possible.
Too many of the arguments on pb.com remind me of that argument. Too many people hurling words at each other as though those words constitute proof, but not enough listening or compassion to understand the meaning, the thoughts and emotions that prompted those words.
There's no point in talking to someone who will not listen. That is why one does not feed the Trolls. It's not that the Trolls aren't hungry, but because they will just through that food back at you, and so you are wasting your time.
Once I have had a bath I would love to listen to any explanation you may have for why there was such a long gap between the innovation of democracy in the Ancient world and democracy in the modern world.
Hear Hear!
Because democracy needs stability and respect for the rule of law. The period between the Ancient and the modern world was characterised by a lack of this. Even times like the Tudor or the Stuart periods were really ruled by monarchical whimsy
So you could say that by going to jail Chris Huhne performed a great service to democracy, since it demonstrated that cabinet ministers were not above the law?
Latest German poll: CDU 38, FDP 4 (and out but close), anti-Euro AfD 2 (and not in), SPD 26, Green 15, Left 8, pirates 4 (and not in but close). Lowest CDU score and highest Left score for a while, making a grand coalition obvious. But previous poll showed CDU-FDP not far off from a majority.
It would be a tragedy if the economic well being of the country was to be decided by some Tory/UKIP doolally pensioners because they are the only ones sufficiently interested in Europe to vote.
But as that is the reality I reckon Ed's made a very smart decision.
After the Greens ruled out supporting a Merkel government the German election has had grand coalition written all over it. The Green's firm position on that at their conference doesnt seem to have produced any reaction in the polls.
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
Instead he has made himself look elitist and undemocratic, and given the Kippers and Tories a joint enemy who might unite them, at a time when UKIP were doing maximum damage to Cameron.
Why? What possible purpose does this serve? It's stupid politics, whatever you think of Europe. The reason he's done it, of course, is that Ed Miliband is overwhelmingly europhile: if he gets in I can see him agitating for euro membership.
One benefit is that it helps squish public arguments on this inside the Labour Party. If his position appears to be up for grabs, Labour people will end up arguing about it via the media, and it will look like the entire political class are scratching their eyes out, not just the Tories.
Worth bearing in mind this is Ed's argument for EU membership in the speech:
David Cameron may try to out Farage-Farage on Britain’s membership of the European Union.
But in all of our decisions we make, we will always stand up for the national interest.
And our national interest lies in staying in the EU.
That's it. No actual reasons why. Just an assertion that EU membership is great. I guess when you take away their three million jobs at risk lies there's nothing left.
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
Instead he has made himself look elitist and undemocratic, and given the Kippers and Tories a joint enemy who might unite them, at a time when UKIP were doing maximum damage to Cameron.
Why? What possible purpose does this serve? It's stupid politics, whatever you think of Europe. The reason he's done it, of course, is that Ed Miliband is overwhelmingly europhile: if he gets in I can see him agitating for euro membership.
One benefit is that it helps squish public arguments on this inside the Labour Party. If his position appears to be up for grabs, Labour people will end up arguing about it via the media, and it will look like the entire political class are scratching their eyes out, not just the Tories.
How exactly does this desire for Labour eurosceptics to not discuss their views chime with Ed's argument later in the speech that no policy area should be a no-go for discussion?
"That is why, as part of our Policy Review, we are absolutely committed to devolving power down.
Because the only way we can restore faith in politics is from the ground up."
Except for the ever increasing amount of power that goes to the European Union, an arrangement in which the people on the ground should simply be ignored.
Silly unforced error from Red. He should have maintained his waffling, Wait and See approach, and let the Tories continue to scratch their own eyes out.
Instead he has made himself look elitist and undemocratic, and given the Kippers and Tories a joint enemy who might unite them, at a time when UKIP were doing maximum damage to Cameron.
Why? What possible purpose does this serve? It's stupid politics, whatever you think of Europe. The reason he's done it, of course, is that Ed Miliband is overwhelmingly europhile: if he gets in I can see him agitating for euro membership.
One benefit is that it helps squish public arguments on this inside the Labour Party. If his position appears to be up for grabs, Labour people will end up arguing about it via the media, and it will look like the entire political class are scratching their eyes out, not just the Tories.
How exactly does this desire for Labour eurosceptics to not discuss their views chime with Ed's argument later in the speech that no policy area should be a no-go for discussion?
I haven't read the full speech but that sounds like a meaningless platitude, possibly one that's setting up the main point, "...but seriously, everyone STFU about this". I mean, obviously lots of policy areas should be a no-go area for discussion. Or at least, the discussion should finish very quickly.
"Should we make a law that ginger-haired people aren't allowed outside unless they're wearing hats?" "No."
Latest German poll: CDU 38, FDP 4 (and out but close), anti-Euro AfD 2 (and not in), SPD 26, Green 15, Left 8, pirates 4 (and not in but close). Lowest CDU score and highest Left score for a while, making a grand coalition obvious. But previous poll showed CDU-FDP not far off from a majority.
Having passed through, Ed Milliband's constituency today, - and is he not everything one imagines of a South Yorkshire Labour MP????? [did their number include the late-unlamented Dennis Macshame????? - I hypothesize that that there might be an inverse relationship between the salience of the EU issue and IQ.
I do wonder if Barbara Hewson, the barrister who advocates reducing the age of consent to 13, is taking her message into the muslim communities of the North-West, Bradford, Birmingham, and other cities. It might be useful in avoiding expensive legal proceedings in cases of "grooming gangs" which have emerged with regularity [they no doubt being a fairly constant feature] in these areas in recent years.
OT, I'm a bit late to this, but this guy has a round-up of some possible PES candidates for Commission President. Hopefully somebody substantial will run and it won't just be a Martin Schulz coronation.
OT, I'm a bit late to this, but this guy has a round-up of some possible PES candidates for Commission President. Hopefully somebody substantial will run and it won't just be a Martin Schulz coronation.
Latest German poll: CDU 38, FDP 4 (and out but close), anti-Euro AfD 2 (and not in), SPD 26, Green 15, Left 8, pirates 4 (and not in but close). Lowest CDU score and highest Left score for a while, making a grand coalition obvious. But previous poll showed CDU-FDP not far off from a majority.
Latest German poll: CDU 38, FDP 4 (and out but close), anti-Euro AfD 2 (and not in), SPD 26, Green 15, Left 8, pirates 4 (and not in but close). Lowest CDU score and highest Left score for a while, making a grand coalition obvious. But previous poll showed CDU-FDP not far off from a majority.
New Star Trek - I finally see what people have been talking about, Benedict Cumberbatch is as phenomenal an actor as he appeared to be in the trailer. I'm at a loss as to why I disliked his Sherlock so much.
I always think of Benedict Cumberbatch in the role in which i first discovered him - as the young Stephen Hawking.
David Cameron has said that he will hold a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU in the next Parliament. Some Conservative MPs have called for a referendum in this Parliament, or at least for legislation setting up a referendum to be passed this Parliament. David Cameron has said this is impossible, as the Liberal Democrats would not support a referendum and the Conservatives alone do not have enough votes to set one up.
What would you most like to see? A referendum on EU membership before the next general election 44%
Legislation introduced now to set up a referendum on EU membership after the next election 10%
A referendum on EU membership set up after the next general election 8%
There is no need for any referendum on EU membership 20% (Con 11%, LAB 32%; LD 43%; UKIP 2%)
DK 18%
And regardless of what you would like to see, do you think it is would or would not be possible for David Cameron to hold a referendum before the next election?
Would be possible - if he really wanted one, David Cameron would be able to get other parties to agree to a referendum 46%
Would not be possible - whatever David Cameron wants, the other parties would not agree to holding a referendum before the next election 31%
DK 21%
And in practice, do you think there WILL be a referendum on Britain's membership in the years ahead? Yes, during this Parliament and before the general election 8%
Yes, after the next election in the next Parliament 31%
No, not in the next six or seven years 28%
No, there will never be a referendum 13%
DK 23%
f there was a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, how would you vote?
Remain a member 30 (-5) Leave the EU 47 (+1) WNV 4 (-22) DK 19 (+3)
Imagine the British government under David Cameron renegotiated our relationship with Europe and said that Britain's interests were now protected, and David Cameron recommended that Britain remain a member of the European Union on the new terms. How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue
And regardless of what you would like to see, do you think it is would or would not be possible for David Cameron to hold a referendum before the next election?
Would be possible - if he really wanted one, David Cameron would be able to get other parties to agree to a referendum 46%
That UKIP have such an advantage on immigration suggests they're a long way from peaking in the Voting Intention polls.
Glad that people see through Mr Cameron's "can't be done" line.
EDIT Given that it's a port, I would expect immigration to be a big issue for voters in Portsmouth South.
Comments
I'll get my coat...
Now the gender discrimination has been removed, in the sense that William and Kate's first-born, whether male or female, will become heir, shouldn't Prince Philip be the King?
"Surely it would entirely depend on what the new terms were?"
You'd have thought so but as people couldn't care less about the subject I don't suppose they really care that much.
Thanks.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/index.htm
Greens 15% rather than 8% (it was such a shift from where they've been for months that I double checked!).
But as that is the reality I reckon Ed's made a very smart decision.
After the Greens ruled out supporting a Merkel government the German election has had grand coalition written all over it. The Green's firm position on that at their conference doesnt seem to have produced any reaction in the polls.
Edit - oh, now I understand what your comment meant, sorry!
David Cameron may try to out Farage-Farage on Britain’s membership of the European Union.
But in all of our decisions we make, we will always stand up for the national interest.
And our national interest lies in staying in the EU.
That's it. No actual reasons why. Just an assertion that EU membership is great. I guess when you take away their three million jobs at risk lies there's nothing left.
"That is why, as part of our Policy Review, we are absolutely committed to devolving power down.
Because the only way we can restore faith in politics is from the ground up."
Except for the ever increasing amount of power that goes to the European Union, an arrangement in which the people on the ground should simply be ignored.
"Should we make a law that ginger-haired people aren't allowed outside unless they're wearing hats?"
"No."
http://www.jonworth.eu/pes-candidates-for-commission-president/
Here are some Helle Thorning Schmidt quotes to go along with it.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/h/helle_thorningschmidt.html
http://www.jobsworth.eu/pes-candidates-for-commission-president/
Obviously the danger is that you vote for them but they still don't make it, and you end up tactically throwing away your vote...
Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has ordered sweeping new rules to get Britain’s ailing high streets back on their feet.
I have never watched any Star Trek film.
2010 LD voters:
Con:10%; LAB 35%; LD 32%; UKIP 13%; GN 5%
Which party, if any, do you trust the most to deal
with the issue of immigration?
Con 17(-2)
LAB 12(0)
LD 5(0)
UKIP 30 (+6)
None 26 (-3)
DK 11( 0)
David Cameron has said that he will hold a
referendum on Britain's membership of the EU
in the next Parliament.
Some Conservative MPs have called for a
referendum in this Parliament, or at least for
legislation setting up a referendum to be passed
this Parliament. David Cameron has said this is
impossible, as the Liberal Democrats would not
support a referendum and the Conservatives
alone do not have enough votes to set one up.
What would you most like to see?
A referendum on EU membership before the next
general election 44%
Legislation introduced now to set up a referendum
on EU membership after the next election 10%
A referendum on EU membership set up after the
next general election 8%
There is no need for any referendum on EU
membership 20% (Con 11%, LAB 32%; LD 43%; UKIP 2%)
DK 18%
And regardless of what you would like to see, do
you think it is would or would not be possible
for David Cameron to hold a referendum before
the next election?
Would be possible - if he really wanted one, David
Cameron would be able to get other parties to
agree to a referendum 46%
Would not be possible - whatever David Cameron
wants, the other parties would not agree to holding
a referendum before the next election 31%
DK 21%
And in practice, do you think there WILL be a
referendum on Britain's membership in the
years ahead?
Yes, during this Parliament and before the general
election 8%
Yes, after the next election in the next Parliament 31%
No, not in the next six or seven years 28%
No, there will never be a referendum 13%
DK 23%
f there was a referendum on Britain's
membership of the European Union, how would you vote?
Remain a member 30 (-5)
Leave the EU 47 (+1)
WNV 4 (-22)
DK 19 (+3)
Imagine the British government under David
Cameron renegotiated our relationship with
Europe and said that Britain's interests were
now protected, and David Cameron
recommended that Britain remain a member of
the European Union on the new terms.
How would you then vote in a referendum on the issue
Remain 45(-1)
Leave 32(+1)
WNV 4(-2)
DK 20(+3)
* I would vote for Britain to leave the EU (47%)
* If the British government renegotiated our relationship with Europe - would vote for Britain to remain in the EU on the new terms (45%)
Con (--)
Lab (-1)
Ukip (+4)
LD (-2)
Oth (-1)
Glad that people see through Mr Cameron's "can't be done" line.
EDIT
Given that it's a port, I would expect immigration to be a big issue for voters in Portsmouth South.