I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
The simple solution to the monarchy issue would be to replace the monarch with a computer program that fills the same constitutional role but without the racism and the sex crimes. You could make a little robot to wave to people, they'd still come out and cheer, it would be pretty great.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Both SNP gains imo. Tories will hold 2 maybe all 3 border seats and probably aberdeenshire west, maybe banff and Buchan and poss renfrewshire, lib dems should hold what they have, all close though except shetland and orkney, snp gains of the rest of the Tory seats, most of the labour seats if not all of them. I'm not stuart but that's my tuppence anyway
It is beginning to look as if it will be "Custer's last Stand" for the majority of the non SNP seats.
Also known as the Battle of the Greasy Grass, which I would have thought you would have thought more appropriate.
Will be plenty of snake oil being used for sure. Thanks for that info though , amazed that I had not heard it called that despite having read up on it and watched various TV programmes on it.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
Both SNP gains imo. Tories will hold 2 maybe all 3 border seats and probably aberdeenshire west, maybe banff and Buchan and poss renfrewshire, lib dems should hold what they have, all close though except shetland and orkney, snp gains of the rest of the Tory seats, most of the labour seats if not all of them. I'm not stuart but that's my tuppence anyway
It is beginning to look as if it will be "Custer's last Stand" for the majority of the non SNP seats.
I think berwickshire, aberdeenshire west and Mundell are pretty rock solid safe, as is Shetland/Orkney. Everything else in play though
The LibDems will hold their 4 seats fine, and will probably take Fife NE.
"the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election "
Nah. It's the two local council seats where Labour's in real danger of losing what it held in May to upstarts. LD's in Witney North and Radcliffe First in Radcliffe West.
If Corbyn's uselessness over the past three months loses these two, you can forget all the guff about threats from the Brexit Party.
Is that right the PM indicated during the Leadership Election that he was opposed to proroguing Parliament in the way he just has? Don't tell me Boris fibbed!
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
Being a patriot means you have to be pro the continuation of the monarchy?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Your second paragraph is a non sequitur. It is perfectly possible for a republican to love his country - indeed he might love it more as a consequence of it having ceased to be a monarchy.
"the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election "
Nah. It's the two local council seats where Labour's in real danger of losing what it held in May to upstarts. LD's in Witney North and Radcliffe First in Radcliffe West.
If Corbyn's uselessness over the past three months loses these two, you can forget all the guff about threats from the Brexit Party.
Well I travel through Witney a fair bit and one does notice quite a few sandals being worn.
Is that right the PM indicated during the Leadership Election that he was opposed to proroguing Parliament in the way he just has? Don't tell me Boris fibbed!
The bounder!!
He was... noncommittal in his disapproval.
Several among his now cabinet condemned the idea without reservation.
Is that right the PM indicated during the Leadership Election that he was opposed to proroguing Parliament in the way he just has? Don't tell me Boris fibbed!
The bounder!!
Did anyone ask him if he would be bringing a Queen's Speech before the end of October?
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
Unfortunately for the Firm, the time lag for the populace finding out that unmitigated arsehole is unmitigated arsehole has moved from years, decades or centuries post mortem to somebody tweeting pics of what said arsehole was up to extremely recently.
Exactly. Social media spells the end of the monarchy. It is just a matter of waiting. Statistically, an unmitigated arsehole pops up a couple of times per century, so we won’t have long to wait.
I'm not sure that follows. The Queen has certainly had a couple of dicey spells in her reign, two in the 1990s. Queen Victoria experienced similar "blips" at points during her reign.
The issue isn't that - it's how the monarch of the day responds to them.
The Prince Andrew business has the potential to be very nasty. What if (I know) the Yanks ask for him as a witness in a trial, or worse, find some reason to charge him?
Maybe but I don't think it's really featuring as a major news story of everyday conversation.
Most people simply don't care that much about Andrew.
His mother does, he's favourite child apparently.
Oddly enough, guy at the gym (a retired doctor) asked me what I thought about Prince A this morning. If he was on the jury, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor would have no chance.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
As was the fate of many a Continental monarchy...
The British monarchy has hitherto been good at changing in order to conserve.
This talk of republicanism is beside the point. When Charles succeeds the public will rally around (he's already becoming more popular) and will be seen as the fond grandfather. William has not put a foot wrong and will secure the future of the institution well into the distant future. Changing to a republic would be hugely complicated for a whole variety of reasons. Very few would have the appetite for it.
I am a staunch monarchist. I consider proper constitutional monarchy almost the ideal form of Government. Not only for this country but also for others.
I think several other European countries would be happier and more stable with one, such as Bulgaria and Russia.
Is that right the PM indicated during the Leadership Election that he was opposed to proroguing Parliament in the way he just has? Don't tell me Boris fibbed!
The bounder!!
He was... noncommittal in his disapproval.
Several among his now cabinet condemned the idea without reservation.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
One of the reasons I like to recommend the book is that it helps with the understanding of that mind set, and is therefore something of a cautionary tale.
The simple solution to the monarchy issue would be to replace the monarch with a computer program that fills the same constitutional role but without the racism and the sex crimes. You could make a little robot to wave to people, they'd still come out and cheer, it would be pretty great.
Utterly weird.
The whole point of the monarchy is its flesh and blood humanity, and the fact it's a national family.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
One of the reasons I like to recommend the book is that it helps with the understanding of that mind set, and is therefore something of a cautionary tale.
The simple solution to the monarchy issue would be to replace the monarch with a computer program that fills the same constitutional role but without the racism and the sex crimes. You could make a little robot to wave to people, they'd still come out and cheer, it would be pretty great.
"it would be pretty great". Go on, you're Trump, aren't you?
"the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election "
Nah. It's the two local council seats where Labour's in real danger of losing what it held in May to upstarts. LD's in Witney North and Radcliffe First in Radcliffe West.
If Corbyn's uselessness over the past three months loses these two, you can forget all the guff about threats from the Brexit Party.
Well I travel through Witney a fair bit and one does notice quite a few sandals being worn.
Other than the usual suspects, I can’t seen much discussion of the monarchy in the real world today. I suspect it’s one of those things where if you honestly believe No Deal will be awful, then it’s rational to assume there’ll need to scapegoats and the events of yesterday might add the monarchy to the list. On the other hand if, like me, you think No Deal will have a limited impact then (equally rationally) you don’t see that happening.
As with all of these differences around the interpretation of the impact of No Deal only time will tell.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
Being a patriot means you have to be pro the continuation of the monarchy?
Yes.
With respect that is nonsense
I don't want your respect. To be a patriot means you love your country and, according to Webster's, would be willing to fight for it. Let's leave that last bit out and go with love your country a lot.
A republican, such as yourself, does not love this country. He loves another country that this one, that the UK is not; one without a monarch as head of state. That means you are not a patriot.
Your second paragraph is a non sequitur. It is perfectly possible for a republican to love his country - indeed he might love it more as a consequence of it having ceased to be a monarchy.
You're late to the game but to repeat, he cannot love it if he wants to change its constitution fundamentally. He would love what it might become and he might love the potential for it to be something else, but as currently constituted he does not love it.
But we've moved on, everyone who commented agreed that I was right.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
Not just England and Ireland, there were Nazi fans all over Europe during the 1930s. I cannot think of a single country that was immune.
Lord Reith, founder of the BBC, was a huge fan of the Nazis, according to his daughter.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
It was quite a common view at the time that bourgeois parliamentary democracy was logjammed and moribund and unable to deliver the will of the people. Also that the only way to escape the threat of socialism was through the action of an autocratic leader.
The Nazis did this with characteristicly Germanic efficiency, but this was a phenomenon across much of Europe. By concentrating on the most extreme example we perhaps neglect the more instructive ones.
'They had a goal waiting for them and they hit it over the bar'
Ruth making ever such a sensible speech and is such a loss to the party
Definitely a huge loss. However as she says, the election successes pale into insignificance compared to IndyRef, and this decision puts her in a good position to play a major role in any future IndyRef, with her credibility untarnished by Brexit/Boris. Could be quite a smart move. And, actually, I'm quite sure she is genuine about the family considerations.
I see everyone is getting all excited about the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election
PB at its ”the world stops at the Watford Gap” best.
Heard any whispers? I think it'll be closer than I initially thought but the LD habit will still triumph. Expecting lots of 'if the Nats can't win in this perfect storm for Unionism, when can they?' reactions.
Straightforward SLD Hold. On heavily reduced majority, but still comfy.
Oh yes, the BBC will have a field day claiming a crushing victory for British nationalism. Balanced commentary went out the window years ago.
Stuart. Any idea who is likely to win Aberdeen South and Edinburgh South if there is an early election?
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
No one cares what you think, Big G. It's the way the monarchy works.
I really do not mind who cares, it is just the monarchy is an anachronism that needs to go
Disgraceful comment from a supposed patriot.
Being a patriot means you have to be pro the continuation of the monarchy?
Yes.
It wasn't a comment it was a one word answer.
Please see my response to Big G. A patriot loves their country. Not some other mythical country that doesn't exist but has the Great Scythian Dark Commander as head of state. A British patriot loves their country as currently constituted.
They might be a patriot in waiting (O Come Great Commander) but they ain't a patriot now if they don't love the country as is.
That's like saying that I can't love my wife because I don't like how she fills the dishwasher. Surely a true patriot is somebody who wants to make their country better.
Also, cannot I aspire for my country to be better? Not that I particularly care for labels like patriot (I don't consider the idea of love for one's country particularly useful), but by your definition @TOPPING if ANYONE wants ANY change to the country, that means they aren't patriots. Want to get rid of FPTP, not a patriot. Want to see an elected HoL, not a patriot. Reformism is not anti patriotic. Revolutionaryism may be, and I may be willing to put myself in that camp.
A patriot may not wish to see the Armed Forces of his country prevail in battle if he genuinely believes them to be guided by evil forces and are being used as instruments of aggression against others.Claus Von Stauffenberg was a great patriot, and I take the same view of those who had no desire to see the British and US forces triumph in the 2003 Iraq War.
"the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election "
Nah. It's the two local council seats where Labour's in real danger of losing what it held in May to upstarts. LD's in Witney North and Radcliffe First in Radcliffe West.
If Corbyn's uselessness over the past three months loses these two, you can forget all the guff about threats from the Brexit Party.
Well I travel through Witney a fair bit and one does notice quite a few sandals being worn.
There are only two positions to hold at the next election. Pro Johnson or against. The only question is how to maximise the anti Johnson vote. I'm hoping one of the legendary PB psephologists will guide us where we have to put our X to give us the best chance. Scotland should be easy.
'They had a goal waiting for them and they hit it over the bar'
Ruth making ever such a sensible speech and is such a loss to the party
Definitely a huge loss. However as she says, the election successes pale into insignificance compared to IndyRef, and this decision puts her in a good position to play a major role in any future IndyRef, with her credibility untarnished by Brexit/Boris. Could be quite a smart move. And, actually, I'm quite sure she is genuine about the family considerations.
Bollox and already well tarnished, another one defeated by their blind opposition to SNP rather than having aspirations and policies for Scotland. Will have a think tank / cushy public service number lined up for sure. She is not stupid and can see that she has no chance of going anywhere in politics in Scotland and now that UK is a desert for her she is off, only thing she was ever interested in was promoting herself.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
Not just England and Ireland, there were Nazi fans all over Europe during the 1930s. I cannot think of a single country that was immune.
Lord Reith, founder of the BBC, was a huge fan of the Nazis, according to his daughter.
Indeed. Some saw it very clearly at the time but the sheer horror of what was to come wasn't abundantly clear to many until much later.
I have never really given much thought to the monarchy as an institution - and am a firm fan of the Queen. But today I’m thinking that maybe an elected president would have more scope to refuse a request by an unelected Prime Minister with no mandate to close Parliament down.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy is screwed in the long term. You just need one unmitigated arsehole on the throne and the entire institution will collapse.
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
Not just England and Ireland, there were Nazi fans all over Europe during the 1930s. I cannot think of a single country that was immune.
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
It was quite a common view at the time that bourgeois parliamentary democracy was logjammed and moribund and unable to deliver the will of the people. Also that the only way to escape the threat of socialism was through the action of an autocratic leader.
The Nazis did this with characteristicly Germanic efficiency, but this was a phenomenon across much of Europe. By concentrating on the most extreme example we perhaps neglect the more instructive ones.
My reading suggests that rather than the Nazis being efficient the other parties were disorganised, and von Papen in particular was under the impression he could manage Hitler.
There are only two positions to hold at the next election. Pro Johnson or against. The only question is how to maximise the anti Johnson vote. I'm hoping one of the legendary PB psephologists will guide us where we have to put our X to give us the best chance. Scotland should be easy.
But your premise is not true. There have been plenty on this forum saying "I'm against Johnson but even more important is avoiding Corbyn as PM"
The time to change the monarchs influence is on the passing of the queen
I have no desire to see Charles head of state
So you're perfectly in favour of the monarchy, provided the monarch has no role and it's a person you like. Hmm...
That’s why monarchy
It has had plenty of those.
You have to go back a fair way to find one with the potential to put the firm out of business. The most recent example abdicated before he could hoist the Swastika over Buck House so he doesn't really count.
I could have seen a post War Labour government potentially having succeeded in abolishing the monarchy had he stayed on the throne throughout the war and done all that.
There are some interesting alternative histories that can be conjured up on the premiss that he remained on the throne, many of them pretty dark.
People are, I think, becoming more aware now just how much support there was pre-war for cosying up to the Nazis.
(This gives me a chance to plug one of my favorite books - Making Friends With Hitler by Ian Kershaw, a biography of Lord Londonderry. He was Minister for Aviation in the 1930s and invited many a Nazi dignitary, including Goebbels, to his country pile in Ireland. I suppose you'd have to say he was not so much a bad man as a 'useful idiot' for the Nazis, as Churchill put it. Good job there are no useful idiots around today! Think of the damage they would cause. Btw, if you have seen the film Remains Of The Day, Londonderry is played beautifully by James Fox. The name was changed to Lord Darlington though, presumably for legal reasons.)
At the time many people thought the Nazis rather glitzy, flash, fashionable and modern - with a good few political points to make - as repugnant as that seems now.
It was quite a common view at the time that bourgeois parliamentary democracy was logjammed and moribund and unable to deliver the will of the people. Also that the only way to escape the threat of socialism was through the action of an autocratic leader.
The Nazis did this with characteristicly Germanic efficiency, but this was a phenomenon across much of Europe. By concentrating on the most extreme example we perhaps neglect the more instructive ones.
BoZo has more in common with the Italian clown Mussolini than with the German psychopath.
Both Green and Brexit party would collapse if there was an election tommorow. We'll need to judge the circs of an election if/when it comes though.
The LDs would also fall back.
I think this time , even more so than in 2017, the Remainer Labour and LDs [ most of them anyway ] will vote according to the chances of each. A Labour Remainer in Kingston & Surbiton will vote LD despite 2010. It is far too big an issue now than worry about party preference.
"the main political event of today: the Shetland by-election "
Nah. It's the two local council seats where Labour's in real danger of losing what it held in May to upstarts. LD's in Witney North and Radcliffe First in Radcliffe West.
If Corbyn's uselessness over the past three months loses these two, you can forget all the guff about threats from the Brexit Party.
My Brother and Sister-in-law are both ex Labour/Independent/Green councillors in Radcliffe. They advise that local Labour are seriously worried as Radcliffe First are organised and visible this time.
It was quite a common view at the time that bourgeois parliamentary democracy was logjammed and moribund and unable to deliver the will of the people. Also that the only way to escape the threat of socialism was through the action of an autocratic leader.
The Nazis did this with characteristicly Germanic efficiency, but this was a phenomenon across much of Europe. By concentrating on the most extreme example we perhaps neglect the more instructive ones.
My reading suggests that rather than the Nazis being efficient the other parties were disorganised, and von Papen in particular was under the impression he could manage Hitler.
The politics was in chaos at that time. The relatively central parties were losing control of the Bundestag and the president kept on intervening directly in the functioning of parliament. This resulted in the NSDAP and the comunist parties becoming more and more popular. Where the NSDAP was very effective (rather than efficient) was with the SA being able to "silence" many of their enemies.
Comments
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/1166998132854611968
EdS your cousin
how surprised should we be that these ministers haven't resigned?
PS: Good riddance
Nah. It's the two local council seats where Labour's in real danger of losing what it held in May to upstarts. LD's in Witney North and Radcliffe First in Radcliffe West.
If Corbyn's uselessness over the past three months loses these two, you can forget all the guff about threats from the Brexit Party.
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/status/1166997749621039110
The bounder!!
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1167007658173521921
Will he have hot coals dropped down his breeches in public so we can all have a laugh?
Several among his now cabinet condemned the idea without reservation.
The PM is a more practiced liar.
I think several other European countries would be happier and more stable with one, such as Bulgaria and Russia.
'I will continue to support the party and the prime minister'
'They had a goal waiting for them and they hit it over the bar'
Ruth making ever such a sensible speech and is such a loss to the party
If the truth is remainers are ‘crying wolf’ the whole of the rest of the world don’t seem to be on message.
The whole point of the monarchy is its flesh and blood humanity, and the fact it's a national family.
Much to be said for that. There must be plenty of those in Scotland and at present they are not represented by any of the main parties up there.
Why not hoover that vote up?
NEW THREAD
Prorogued
As with all of these differences around the interpretation of the impact of No Deal only time will tell.
But we've moved on, everyone who commented agreed that I was right.
Lord Reith, founder of the BBC, was a huge fan of the Nazis, according to his daughter.
The Nazis did this with characteristicly Germanic efficiency, but this was a phenomenon across much of Europe. By concentrating on the most extreme example we perhaps neglect the more instructive ones.
However as she says, the election successes pale into insignificance compared to IndyRef, and this decision puts her in a good position to play a major role in any future IndyRef, with her credibility untarnished by Brexit/Boris.
Could be quite a smart move.
And, actually, I'm quite sure she is genuine about the family considerations.