The answer to these questions and more, sadly, has been that oldies vote. I am disappointed by the outcome of the election (to put it mildly) but I very much hope the higher turnout shows younger generations have got the message.
Depends what they vote for. In the general election that has just happened, they voted for economic collapse, huge unemployment, humongous increases in the national debt they'll be burdened with, and continued protection of wealthy pensioners.
[snip] I would contend the Conservative campaign's ineptitude aided Labour as much if not more than the LDs.
I'm also not convinced about this notion of "huge numbers of voters being up for grabs". When you have two such immensely polarising figures as May and Corbyn, the notion becomes that to oppose one you must vote for the other. To vote for a third choice means the least preferred choice might win.
I'd entirely agree that the Con campaign aided Labour far more than the LDs but that's because Labour and Corbyn grasped the opportunity. It need not have been them had someone else done it more effectively. After the shock of 2015, I can understand the limited, defensive battle that the Lib Dems fought and, on its own terms, won. i can also understand why having seen, for example, UKIP pile up 4m votes for one seat, the Lib Dems had no inclination to try to advance everywhere (and in any case, probably didn't have the resources to do so).
All the same, I'd stand by the contention that there were an awful lot of undecideds. The swing during the election is testament to that - but that swing was also typical of an increasingly non-partisan electorate.
Could the Lib Dems have made the breakthrough with a different leader and strategy? The first thing to say is that it probably couldn't with the options available. Farron wasn't destined to spend the campaign talking about gay sex but even if he'd avoided that beartrap, he'd still have sounded the slightly whingy student rather than a PM-in-waiting. Similarly, Norman Lamb, while a decent man, would have struggled in the charisma stakes when up against Corbyn.
However, that's not to say the opportunity wasn't there for someone to almost exactly mirror what Macron did in France (or what the Alliance did in the early 1980s), had someone with the leadership and charisma of Ashdown led the LDs in 2017.
Had that been the case, Corbyn would still have attracted the youth vote and May would still have blundered with the manifesto but the disillusioned voters who clearly did switch from the Tories to Labour (and hence are unlikely to have viewed either with great fear), could well have gone to the third option and built a momentum of their own as Labour struggled and the Tories declined. That would have generated its own dynamic, with much greater criticism within Labour while the Tories stayed quiet, hoping that things would work out and in so doing, failing to address the problems besetting the campaign. At the same time, this (mythical) Lib Dem would have generated positive attention as 'the rising star' of the campaign.
Taking moderate support from Labour, pragmatic support from the Tories and bucket-opposition support from UKIP, there was an opportunity to build a coalition of at least 30% for the Lib Dems - in theory.
In practice, such a leader never existed and this is all hypothetical water under the bridge.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
I believe the paper is faux goatskin.
The QS actually has to be tattooed onto the goat while it is still alive. That's why it takes so long to prepare.
Tories have a simple decision to make imo. Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
It's worth remembering that the Tories haven't had a landslide for 30 years.
Indeed - the last time the Tories secured a sustainable working majority was Mrs Thatcher in June 1987
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
The answer to these questions and more, sadly, has been that oldies vote. I am disappointed by the outcome of the election (to put it mildly) but I very much hope the higher turnout shows younger generations have got the message.
Depends what they vote for. In the general election that has just happened, they voted for economic collapse, huge unemployment, humongous increases in the national debt they'll be burdened with, and continued protection of wealthy pensioners.
Oh I didn't say they had the right message yet. But maybe next time the Conservatives will think young people are actually worth engaging with.
Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?
When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.
Monarchists are usually crap at explaining why an accident of birth should leave one feather bedded all ones life – as Britain's richest welfare recipients. Hardly a flagship for a meritocracy.
The Labour leader's son is working for one of his mates - who also happens to be an MP and shadow chancellor. I'd love to see the extensive process they went through before Seb Corbyn was seen as being the best possible candidate for the job.
Or is meritocracy not applicable to the top of the Labour party?
Nepotism occurs across all parties and industries. That it is exists is hardly a defence for the royal family.
Tories have a simple decision to make imo. Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time? Keeping Corbyn out of number 10 only seems to be a goal if by squatting you can get things done.
Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?
When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.
Don't involve the Queen. The PM should read out the government programme in the house of commons. Simple.and better.
Noooo! Then it would be all full of political spin and guff. When HM does it it has to be an as-dry-as-dust legislative agenda - far better than having 'strong and stable', 'many not the few', 'no return to boom and bust' splattered all over it.
All you are seeing there is something very obvious: pensioners' income is less volatile than working-age people's income. In bad times, it doesn't fall much if at all, because there is no effect from unemployment, the state pension doesn't fall (generally not even in real terms), annuities continue to be paid unchanged, and final-salary pensions continue to be paid unchanged. Conversely, though, in good times none of those sources of income increases much if at all, whereas working-age incomes improve because of lower unemployment, higher salaries, and bonuses. As a result of this effect, in the years of good times leading up to the crash, pensioners' income had hugely fallen behind. In the bad times after the crash, it was working-age people who did worse. This is not at all a disgrace, it's perfectly normal.
Of course, none of this takes place in a policy vacuum, and it is true that policy deliberately protected pensioners in and after the crash, in particular with the triple lock. But the triple lock overwhelmingly benefited the poorest pensioners (those reliant on the state pension only), and they are really quite poor, even now. It was a reasonable policy at the time to build in a bit of catch-up for the poorest pensioners after the boom times left them so far behind.
The policy now has done its job, and should be abandoned now, as Theresa May tried to do. Unfortunately the votes of the just-about-managing youngsters and young families made that politically impossible, and have cemented the triple lock in place. It's a funny old world, but that is what they voted for.
Many of the factors that you mention which have favoured pensioners (such as the terms of private pensions) are in addition to the figures that I have quoted which are only concerned with direct public sector spending. And the consequences have been to aggravate the problems those working for a living have had rather than to mitigate them.
At a time when real wages have really struggled or fallen is it really a priority to reduce in work benefits or should state pension increases have been restrained instead? Why do we still have a higher personal allowance for pensioners? Why, as May tried to do, have some of the expensive fripperies such as WFA, free TV licences and bus passes at least been means tested? Why has NI not been incorporated into IT so that everyone pays a share that better reflects their disposable income?
The answer to these questions and more, sadly, has been that oldies vote. I am disappointed by the outcome of the election (to put it mildly) but I very much hope the higher turnout shows younger generations have got the message.
As I've posted elsewhere - the younger generation haven't got it; they voted for the status quo
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
The answer to these questions and more, sadly, has been that oldies vote. I am disappointed by the outcome of the election (to put it mildly) but I very much hope the higher turnout shows younger generations have got the message.
Depends what they vote for. In the general election that has just happened, they voted for economic collapse, huge unemployment, humongous increases in the national debt they'll be burdened with, and continued protection of wealthy pensioners.
Oh I didn't say they had the right message yet. But maybe next time the Conservatives will think young people are actually worth engaging with.
From yesterdays thread, where the Tories lost wasn't the youngsters (yes there was some surge), but they lost among 30-40 year olds. I mean that is bloody awful up against Corbyn. It is one thing losing to the students and their rose tinted glasses of what Venezula-light would look like, but 40 somethings....
When May was miles ahead in the polls, it was with middle aged people she was doing well with.
It's an interesting point and as others have said in countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain public servants have suffered significant pay cuts.
That hasn't happened here - instead the downward pressure on grades within job profiles has accentuated the differences between the public and private sectors. The skill set required for a medium level post in the public sector and the money that now commands are inferior to the equivalent in the private sector so the public sector struggles to recruit specialists - I've seen this in the field of estate management as an example.
There has also been the ludicrous ring-fencing of NHS, education and other budgets so the reductions have fallen disproportionately in local Government and other sectors.
Is there a skill set for estate management? Just asking not judging.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
Tories have a simple decision to make imo. Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
It's worth remembering that the Tories haven't had a landslide for 30 years.
Indeed - the last time the Tories secured a sustainable working majority was Mrs Thatcher in June 1987
and that only one Labour leader has won the most seats in an election in over 40 years
DUP asking for one billion extra for NHS and one billion extra for infrastructure report colleagues at @BBCnireland
One billion total for the NHS budget, or just for NI? If overall, if May had any sense, like the way the coalition made the raising of IC threshold to £10k a priority, she would make adding £200 million a week extra by 2022 a priority.
Presumably for Northern Ireland. £1bn for NHS overall would be a very modest change.
But there are presumably Barnett formula implications which might well leave England worse off?
And, spending in NI per head is already much higher than the rest of the UK at £2700, vs £2200 (eng), £2300 (wales), £2500 (scot).
Greedy bastards.
That means that spending would be £3240 per person in NI if that £1bil increase was approved. Against £2200 in England, not sure that would be tolerated.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
People like traditions. That's why they endure.
You like them. The QS is a farce.
The monarchy is hugely popular. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact.
It's an interesting point and as others have said in countries like Greece, Portugal and Spain public servants have suffered significant pay cuts.
That hasn't happened here - instead the downward pressure on grades within job profiles has accentuated the differences between the public and private sectors. The skill set required for a medium level post in the public sector and the money that now commands are inferior to the equivalent in the private sector so the public sector struggles to recruit specialists - I've seen this in the field of estate management as an example.
There has also been the ludicrous ring-fencing of NHS, education and other budgets so the reductions have fallen disproportionately in local Government and other sectors.
Is there a skill set for estate management? Just asking not judging.
Will any liberals declare in the Lib Dem leadership race ?
Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?
When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.
Monarchists are usually crap at explaining why an accident of birth should leave one feather bedded all ones life – as Britain's richest welfare recipients. Hardly a flagship for a meritocracy.
The Labour leader's son is working for one of his mates - who also happens to be an MP and shadow chancellor. I'd love to see the extensive process they went through before Seb Corbyn was seen as being the best possible candidate for the job.
Or is meritocracy not applicable to the top of the Labour party?
Nepotism occurs across all parties and industries. That it is exists is hardly a defence for the royal family.
No, but it's an indication that leftists should get their own house in order before talking about topics such as meritocracy and nepotism.
What would you (and I mean you) replace the monarchy with? How can you guarantee it will be better?
Tories have a simple decision to make imo. Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
It's worth remembering that the Tories haven't had a landslide for 30 years.
Indeed - the last time the Tories secured a sustainable working majority was Mrs Thatcher in June 1987
and that only one Labour leader has won the most seats in an election in over 40 years
Which suggests there is significant unhappiness with both Labour and Conservatives among big sections of the electorate.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Tories have a simple decision to make imo. Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
It's worth remembering that the Tories haven't had a landslide for 30 years.
Indeed - the last time the Tories secured a sustainable working majority was Mrs Thatcher in June 1987
and that only one Labour leader has won the most seats in an election in over 40 years
Perhaps that is the future we are looking at. Endless minority governments of Lab and Con, hung parliaments in 80% of elections, and the occasional miniscule majority tory government. We need an En Marche UK!
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony ol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
People like traditions. That's why they endure.
You like them. The QS is a farce.
The monarchy is hugely popular. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact.
The monarchy isn't the problem. It is the ridiculous ceremonial. Sorry I've messed up the quotes.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
That's a very good question. Far more emphasis on endeavour, cooperation, technology, social equality, progress and far less on pageantry. A written constitution, two fully elected chambers with an elected head of state. Keep the monarchy if you like as a purely ceremonial tourist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
What a lot of utter guff our constitutional traditions are
I enjoy all the traditions.
Nobody puts on a ceremony like the Brits.
It's all a little bit unseemly though when set against the real tragedy seen in the last few weeks. The news channels wheeling out the stuffed shirts to waffle about protocol in plumb accents and the need for the speech to be written onto goatskin paper. Is that really what a modern society is about?
What do you think a modern society should be about? What would happen in dyedwoolie's Year Zero?
urist honey trap. Or, I don't know. Something different, something better, something more relevant, something for everyone not everything for some.
People like traditions. That's why they endure.
You like them. The QS is a farce.
The monarchy is hugely popular. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact.
I don't deny that fact. Still worth those of us that do not agree voicing other options and pointing out the absurdity of some rituals. I'm not suggesting change against the will of the people but I would like to see more discussion on the subject.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Interesting comment on the things we will legislate for (agriculture, fisheries, nuclear iirc) but not others - eg aerospace - which suggests some things will remain with European cooperation....
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?
When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.
Monarchists are usually crap at explaining why an accident of birth should leave one feather bedded all ones life – as Britain's richest welfare recipients. Hardly a flagship for a meritocracy.
The Labour leader's son is working for one of his mates - who also happens to be an MP and shadow chancellor. I'd love to see the extensive process they went through before Seb Corbyn was seen as being the best possible candidate for the job.
Or is meritocracy not applicable to the top of the Labour party?
Nepotism occurs across all parties and industries. That it is exists is hardly a defence for the royal family.
No, but it's an indication that leftists should get their own house in order before talking about topics such as meritocracy and nepotism.
What would you (and I mean you) replace the monarchy with? How can you guarantee it will be better?
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
Mr. Barnesian, and with what would you replace tradition? A kaleidoscope nation? Rewriting the national anthem to make it more inclusive, as Lord Goldsmith once wanted?
When you create a void, something will occupy it. It's not good enough to merely dislike something. You need something better to replace it or you may well end up with something worse.
Monarchists are usually crap at explaining why an accident of birth should leave one feather bedded all ones life – as Britain's richest welfare recipients. Hardly a flagship for a meritocracy.
The Labour leader's son is working for one of his mates - who also happens to be an MP and shadow chancellor. I'd love to see the extensive process they went through before Seb Corbyn was seen as being the best possible candidate for the job.
Or is meritocracy not applicable to the top of the Labour party?
Nepotism occurs across all parties and industries. That it is exists is hardly a defence for the royal family.
No, but it's an indication that leftists should get their own house in order before talking about topics such as meritocracy and nepotism.
What would you (and I mean you) replace the monarchy with? How can you guarantee it will be better?
But we were assured on here that his visit was a CERTAINTY.
Free money, the PB Leaver Trumpers told us!
It would have been, but for the election - I'm happy enough to have lost £100 @ 5-6 on that anyhow. Anyway I need him to not set foot in the country now to win the saver.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
You're bowing to the Office of Head of State, not the person. Dimwit.
Barnett consequentials means for every billion spent in NI, £36 billion needs to spent in Scotland, Wales, and England.
They're just making a show for their voters - given there might be another election soonish, But, oh, what a shame, Barnett stopped it. Well, they tried.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
You're bowing to the Office of Head of State, not the person. Dimwit.
Why should he bow to an unelected head of state, Britain's richest welfare recipient?
Tories have a simple decision to make imo. Do they want to lose in a landslide at any point in the next 5 years, whilst unable to push through their programme or roll the dice, let Corbyn have a go and of he is as bad as they suspect sweep in on landslide next time?
It's worth remembering that the Tories haven't had a landslide for 30 years.
Indeed - the last time the Tories secured a sustainable working majority was Mrs Thatcher in June 1987
and that only one Labour leader has won the most seats in an election in over 40 years
Perhaps that is the future we are looking at. Endless minority governments of Lab and Con, hung parliaments in 80% of elections, and the occasional miniscule majority tory government. We need an En Marche UK!
We should probably wait to see how Macron does before we declare it the future.
But we were assured on here that his visit was a CERTAINTY.
Free money, the PB Leaver Trumpers told us!
It would have been, but for the election - I'm happy enough to have lost £100 @ 5-6 on that anyhow. Anyway I need him to not set foot in the country now to win the saver.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
Are you fatuous, ignorant or drunk?
I see the PB Tories are resorted to crass insults because they can't answer the effing question.
Good news that the Queen and the country seem set to be spared the indignity and humiliation of a Trump state visit. It looks like Mrs May's plans to bestride the world with the most anti-British US president in decades are to be postponed.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
Are you fatuous, ignorant or drunk?
I see the PB Tories are resorted to crass insults because they can't answer the effing question.
Drunk it is. The question was answered down thread.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
It depends on the protocol.
For example, I would consider it bad manners to refuse to bow to a judge, when they enter or leave a Courtroom.
I've spent the last few days in Northern Ireland, which was sunny and pleasantly warm. I'm currently speeding back to London to a flat on the third floor with huge warehouse windows and a massive skylight.
It's going to be like an oven, isn't it?
If you were a Tory politician, you'd probably be sacked for that!
There are some hypotheticals too unlikely to waste time considering.
But we were assured on here that his visit was a CERTAINTY.
Free money, the PB Leaver Trumpers told us!
It would have been, but for the election - I'm happy enough to have lost £100 @ 5-6 on that anyhow. Anyway I need him to not set foot in the country now to win the saver.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
He's on a roll. Authenticity taking a slight back seat to gaining power. Wouldn't do to sully the narrative.
Didn't bow to the queen either. Not exactly gentlemanly behaviour - which contrasts with the descriptions we read here of those who know him personally.....
Why should he bow to her? I don't bow to women when I meet them. Do you?
You're bowing to the Office of Head of State, not the person. Dimwit.
Incorrect.
There is no "Office of the Head of State". The Queen's person is the Head of State and you bow to her as the physical embodiment of same, should you choose so to do.
Comments
All the same, I'd stand by the contention that there were an awful lot of undecideds. The swing during the election is testament to that - but that swing was also typical of an increasingly non-partisan electorate.
Could the Lib Dems have made the breakthrough with a different leader and strategy? The first thing to say is that it probably couldn't with the options available. Farron wasn't destined to spend the campaign talking about gay sex but even if he'd avoided that beartrap, he'd still have sounded the slightly whingy student rather than a PM-in-waiting. Similarly, Norman Lamb, while a decent man, would have struggled in the charisma stakes when up against Corbyn.
However, that's not to say the opportunity wasn't there for someone to almost exactly mirror what Macron did in France (or what the Alliance did in the early 1980s), had someone with the leadership and charisma of Ashdown led the LDs in 2017.
Had that been the case, Corbyn would still have attracted the youth vote and May would still have blundered with the manifesto but the disillusioned voters who clearly did switch from the Tories to Labour (and hence are unlikely to have viewed either with great fear), could well have gone to the third option and built a momentum of their own as Labour struggled and the Tories declined. That would have generated its own dynamic, with much greater criticism within Labour while the Tories stayed quiet, hoping that things would work out and in so doing, failing to address the problems besetting the campaign. At the same time, this (mythical) Lib Dem would have generated positive attention as 'the rising star' of the campaign.
Taking moderate support from Labour, pragmatic support from the Tories and bucket-opposition support from UKIP, there was an opportunity to build a coalition of at least 30% for the Lib Dems - in theory.
In practice, such a leader never existed and this is all hypothetical water under the bridge.
Going along with C of E as the established church is one thing. Specifically excluding non-theists through this mealy-mouthed, weak-kneed nonsense of 'faith' (as Charles reportedly wants to change the coronation vow from Defender of the Faith to Defender of Faith) is bullshit. I don't mind the established church having some measure of privilege for historical, cultural and contemporary reasons.
I do mind atheism/agnosis being treated as second class compared to every damned religion (which includes Scientology).
Shows performance based management - sacking the underperformers.
Also a standard trick of leaders to blame the underlings to protect their own position.
https://fullfact.org/health/what-is-the-nhs-budget/
And, spending in NI per head is already much higher than the rest of the UK at £2700, vs £2200 (eng), £2300 (wales), £2500 (scot).
Greedy bastards.
Bring back laissez faire.
On DUP/Barnett, surely they'd know this and try to sidestep the £30bn plus elsewhere?
MAGIC MONEY TREE!!!!!!
When May was miles ahead in the polls, it was with middle aged people she was doing well with.
£1bn for NHS overall would be a very modest change.
But there are presumably Barnett formula implications which might well leave England worse off?
He's displaying all the talent to be PM.
What would you (and I mean you) replace the monarchy with? How can you guarantee it will be better?
Well it's a view I suppose....
What a load of guff this State Opening is. Will the country ever move on.
Free money, the PB Leaver Trumpers told us!
Atheism/agnosis are religious positions. Neither can be considered faith because neither believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Apolitical election.
Mandy the Tea Girl can apply.
I don't care whether it is popular or not.
Confirmation that grammar schools, end of pension triple lock, means-testing winter fuel allowance all in history's dustbin #QueensSpeech
The oldies get their way. Not sure that's good for the country.
Lols.....
I see the PB Tories are resorted to crass insults because they can't answer the effing question.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/21/queens-speech-key-points-theresa-may-has-shredded-tory-manifesto/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
I rest my case M'Lud.
For example, I would consider it bad manners to refuse to bow to a judge, when they enter or leave a Courtroom.
There is no "Office of the Head of State". The Queen's person is the Head of State and you bow to her as the physical embodiment of same, should you choose so to do.