I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
Mary Robinson made a difference. A friend of mine used to speak very highly of her
This has been an ongoing problem for several years. Balloons is the least of the problems. As far back as 2012 Popular Mechanics were reporting on this and its impact on MRI and other medical scanners and such basics as arc welding and the manufacture of silicon chips.
The US supplies 75% of the word's helium and its main source is just about depleted.
I knew an oil company in Kurdistan, who was gutted to discover the light patch on their seismic was not methane but helium...
And then got very excitied when they realised that helium was so expensive.
And then got very disappointed when they realised their licenses didn't allow them to exploit it, and that it would be incredibly difficult to get out of Kurdistan.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
The 2016 referendum lacks legitimacy on so many levels. We will still need to leave though because Leavers and their cretinous antics have trashed our reputation for decades to come. It is now about ensuring that those responsible are held accountable.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
So the President supported the Chancellor anyway then.
I would say more people have heard of Queen Elizabeth IInd than any other Head of State on earth bar maybe Trump.
The monarchy helps with promoting brand UK immensely in that respect
Two political outsiders will compete in a run-off vote to become Tunisia's next president after they topped the first round of voting...
Media Mogul Mr Karoui, 56, is running for office from behind bars after he was detained last month on charges of money laundering and tax fraud, which he has denied.
He is still able to stand for election despite his arrest but he was not allowed to vote
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
So the President supported the Chancellor anyway then.
I would say more people have heard of Queen Elizabeth IInd than any other Head of State on earth bar maybe Trump.
The monarchy helps with promoting brand UK immensely in that respect
Judging by Kate Hoey's Twitter activity in recent weeks, defection to the Brexit Party looks imminent.
I pointed out when she said she wouldn't stand for Labour in the next election that she was planning to vote with the Conservatives. So I am not wildly surprised at this.
#nevertrumps like lots of his policies and will totally vote for him rather than third party like in 2016.
The problem Trump has in the rust belt is that they have - economically - been the weakest part of the US. Again.
All the best performing states, with the exception of New Mexico and Nevada, are safely Republican (like TX) or safely Democrat (like NY).
Yup, I have been trying to point this out to people pushing the "Economy is doing great == Trump guaranteed to be re-elected" crowd on here. But apparently this makes me partisanly anti-Trump and not to be trusted.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
So the President supported the Chancellor anyway then.
I would say more people have heard of Queen Elizabeth IInd than any other Head of State on earth bar maybe Trump.
The monarchy helps with promoting brand UK immensely in that respect
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM
No Government control of most of the economy = socialism
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
an interesting article from the Guardian a few days ago looking at the change in wages and cost of living since 1969.
Basically wage growth has run ahead of most basic prices. The big exception of course being property, particularly in the South East. But many food stuffs are now far cheaper than the inflation adjusted costs from 50 years ago. Beer is substantially more expensive but petrol is only vey slightly dearer (£1.26 a litre compared to £1.20 in 1969 inflation adjusted value.)
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
Mary Robinson made a difference. A friend of mine used to speak very highly of her
an interesting article from the Guardian a few days ago looking at the change in wages and cost of living since 1969.
Basically wage growth has run ahead of most basic prices. The big exception of course being property, particularly in the South East. But many food stuffs are now far cheaper than the inflation adjusted costs from 50 years ago. Beer is substantially more expensive but petrol is only vey slightly dearer (£1.26 a litre compared to £1.20 in 1969 inflation adjusted value.)
Two political outsiders will compete in a run-off vote to become Tunisia's next president after they topped the first round of voting...
Media Mogul Mr Karoui, 56, is running for office from behind bars after he was detained last month on charges of money laundering and tax fraud, which he has denied.
He is still able to stand for election despite his arrest but he was not allowed to vote
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
So it's basically pointless
Far from it.
What is the point of it? Other than providing fodder for the gossip columns (which I admit is an important service for many).
I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
If Johnson hadn't committed literally this week to a very short transition, member states might be persuaded that customs checks could happen away from the border by the time they were needed, if at all.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
So it's basically pointless
Far from it.
What is the point of it? Other than providing fodder for the gossip columns (which I admit is an important service for many).
I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
Maybe your problem is it works in practice but not in theory?
Spot on. It also undermines the concept that success is based on talent and hard work, which is a conservative principle as well as an Old Labour one.
British conservatives supported the monarchy and landed gentry at least a century before they supported free market economics which tended to be a liberal idea originally
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not l. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Indeed, Sweden and Canada have constitutional monarchies, the USA is a Republic
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
...ctly legal.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
So it's basically pointless
Far from it.
What is the point of it? Other than providing fodder for the gossip columns (which I admit is an important service for many).
I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
Maybe your problem is it works in practice but not in theory?
Sure.
Fair point.
Until the monarchists get a royal they don’t like.
Then it doesn’t work in practice either.
I’d keep Liz, then knock the whole thing on the head when she goes to the great monarch in the sky.
an interesting article from the Guardian a few days ago looking at the change in wages and cost of living since 1969.
Basically wage growth has run ahead of most basic prices. The big exception of course being property, particularly in the South East. But many food stuffs are now far cheaper than the inflation adjusted costs from 50 years ago. Beer is substantially more expensive but petrol is only vey slightly dearer (£1.26 a litre compared to £1.20 in 1969 inflation adjusted value.)
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
...ctly legal.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
So it's basically pointless
Far from it.
What is the point of it? Other than providing fodder for the gossip columns (which I admit is an important service for many).
I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
Maybe your problem is it works in practice but not in theory?
Sure.
Fair point.
Until the monarchists get a royal they don’t like.
Then it doesn’t work in practice either.
I’d keep Liz, then knock the whole thing on the head when she goes to the great monarch in the sky.
I'll give Charles a chance - the thing about when it doesnt work is it will be fixed right darn quick.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not l. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Indeed, Sweden and Canada have constitutional monarchies, the USA is a Republic
I think even your loyal subjects on PB were aware of that.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
That has got nothing to do with it, neither a constitutional monarchy nor a president would make the slightest difference to whether you have to take responsibility for your actions
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Aren't we in danger of doing exactly that if the courts are given oversight of political decisions?
Spot on. It also undermines the concept that success is based on talent and hard work, which is a conservative principle as well as an Old Labour one.
British conservatives supported the monarchy and landed gentry at least a century before they supported free market economics which tended to be a liberal idea originally
I think the idea of working for a wage is a generally good principle that should apply to everyone, whether or not they are born or married to a German dynasty.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
The welfare stare is ordinary people clubbing together to help other ordinary people in need. It’s not a higher authority.
According to YouGov 88% of Tory voters, 77% of LD voters and 57% of Labour voters think the institution of monarchy is good for Britain. So I cannot see it going anytime soon, indeed support for the monarchy is one of the few issues that unites most voters regardless of party even if Tories tend to be a bit more in favour than LD and Labour voters
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Aren't we in danger of doing exactly that if the courts are given oversight of political decisions?
Judges are people employed to uphold laws written by us together.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Aren't we in danger of doing exactly that if the courts are given oversight of political decisions?
Judges are people employed to uphold laws written by us together.
How can judges be people? They're enemies of the people, I read it in a newspaper once. And will again, depending on the result.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President.
Ones like Trump and Macron who are highly political and divisive.
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
That has got nothing to do with it, neither a constitutional monarchy nor a president would make the slightest difference to whether you have to take responsibility for your actions
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
The welfare stare is ordinary people clubbing together to help other ordinary people in need. It’s not a higher authority.
I'll eat what I want and do no exercise because the NHS will fix everything. I won't bother getting an education or qualifications because I'll get benefits.
(1) Effectively it keeps N Ireland in the EU for agricultural purposes until such time as Stormont voted to withdraw (at which point it would by default becoming No Deal) (2) The EU would need to agree to make agriculture a special case, which they so far have ruled out.
I'd think that (2) was negotiable, and realistically I suspect Stormont would never vote to withdraw. So it looks not impossible. But it certainly does make Northern Ireland different from Britain, which was hitherto a DUP red line.
They'll get a big sweetener for NI. Bridge/tunnel combo feasability study plus a Freeport status should get them over the line.
.....and they can play their drums and bugles as long as they like with free bowler hats for everyone over 18
Spot on. It also undermines the concept that success is based on talent and hard work, which is a conservative principle as well as an Old Labour one.
British conservatives supported the monarchy and landed gentry at least a century before they supported free market economics which tended to be a liberal idea originally
I think the idea of working for a wage is a generally good principle that should apply to everyone, whether or not they are born or married to a German dynasty.
I am a traditional Tory not a classical liberal, I am a constitutional monarchist before all else and I also believe in inheritance and preserving family wealth.
Plus of course both Prince William and Harry and Meghan and Kate for example have all done paid work at some point as well as carrying out their royal duties
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Aren't we in danger of doing exactly that if the courts are given oversight of political decisions?
Shutting down parliament for political reasons isn't itself necessarily a political decision. In the same way that bombing a bridge for political reasons isn't a political decision.
There are political aims, and there are political methods. Political aims are legitimate, but not all methods to achieve them are.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
The welfare stare is ordinary people clubbing together to help other ordinary people in need. It’s not a higher authority.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Aren't we in danger of doing exactly that if the courts are given oversight of political decisions?
Judges are people employed to uphold laws written by us together.
Are they? It looks like they are making a judgement on whether the government can make political decisions.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved. In 2005 Chancellor Gerhard Schröder told his party not to support a confidence vote, so that an election could be called. This was really testing the limit of the fixed term rules. The president then investigated the fine details of the legality of this before ruling that an election was indeed lawful. Boring but important.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
I don't think that Monarchy has any meaningful effect in that dimension within the UK.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
The welfare stare is ordinary people clubbing together to help other ordinary people in need. It’s not a higher authority.
I'll eat what I want and do no exercise because the NHS will fix everything. I won't bother getting an education or qualifications because I'll get benefits.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
So it's basically pointless
Far from it.
What is the point of it? Other than providing fodder for the gossip columns (which I admit is an important service for many).
I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
Maybe your problem is it works in practice but not in theory?
In theory, there's a difference between practice and theory. But in practice, there isn't.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
The welfare stare is ordinary people clubbing together to help other ordinary people in need. It’s not a higher authority.
I'll eat what I want and do no exercise because the NHS will fix everything. I won't bother getting an education or qualifications because I'll get benefits.
It's literally no different.
Sadly a few people like you will abuse themselves and your fellow man. But despite your selfishness, the rest of us are stronger when we work together and look after each other. I feel sorry for you.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
Spot on. It also undermines the concept that success is based on talent and hard work, which is a conservative principle as well as an Old Labour one.
British conservatives supported the monarchy and landed gentry at least a century before they supported free market economics which tended to be a liberal idea originally
I think the idea of working for a wage is a generally good principle that should apply to everyone, whether or not they are born or married to a German dynasty.
I am a traditional Tory not a classical liberal, I am a constitutional monarchist before all else and I also believe in inheritance and preserving family wealth.
Plus of course both Prince William and Harry and Meghan and Kate for example have all done paid work at some point as well as carrying out their royal duties
True. Although they haven’t worked in a greasy spoon every morning to make ends meet, at least not to my knowledge.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our monarchy works well when it’s incumbents follow convention and precedent and don’t let their egos and delusions of grandeur run ahead of themselves.
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
So it's basically pointless
Far from it.
What is the point of it? Other than providing fodder for the gossip columns (which I admit is an important service for many).
I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
Maybe your problem is it works in practice but not in theory?
In theory, there's a difference between practice and theory. But in practice, there isn't.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
Aren't you a Labour party member? You've literally made the single biggest argument against the welfare state.
The welfare stare is ordinary people clubbing together to help other ordinary people in need. It’s not a higher authority.
I'll eat what I want and do no exercise because the NHS will fix everything. I won't bother getting an education or qualifications because I'll get benefits.
It's literally no different.
Yep, as we all know in the United States the proles are all fit as fleas, as lithe as well oiled Greek gods and godesses and are near immortal.
In Scandanavia and the Netherlands, their well developed welfare states have turned them into lardy arsed couch potatoes with the life expectancy of mayflies.
Conservatism: know your place Liberalism: people can change places Socialism: there shouldn't be places Nationalism: this is our place Brexit: this is our plaice
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it would be important that the SC at least rules the matter justiciable. To not do so would effectively mean a PM could prorogue Parliament whenever they like and the law couldn’t intervene .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a president who performs the current functions of the monarch, plus the power to amend a preset prorogation timetable.
No thsnks. Very happy with the current setup. Certainly don't want President Thatcher or Blair.
Yeah, and I don't want King Charles. But a President Blair would be at least be the fault of the people, and removable by the people. The only mechanism we currently have for the people to change the head of state is... not strictly legal.
Current evidence would indicate that our monarchy is far more accountable and pppular than any of our current or former political leaders.
Our
I’d say that’s it’s only real weakness.
You are saying the monarchy works well when its role is purely symbolic, but not if it is needed to make a meaningful decision.
That’s the essence of constitutional monarchy.
Right to be consulted, to be advised and to warn. But not to decide.
So it's basically pointless
Far from it.
What is the point of it? Other than providing fodder for the gossip columns (which I admit is an important service for many).
I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
Maybe your problem is it works in practice but not in theory?
In theory, there's a difference between practice and theory. But in practice, there isn't.
I should add that I don't have a problem with the theory either, but I understand others might.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
What we need in the longer term is a bill to limit the time of any prorogation to, say 5 working days combined with a very limited list of reasons why it should be permitted.
Stop not just the Johnson examples but also the Atlee and Major examples.
Get rid of the queen, have a
Yeah, and I don't want Kingl.
Presidents are shit.
You get two kinds of President
Then you get non-executive Presidents who no-one has ever heard of and have zero presence on the international stage.
Who’s ever heard of (still less cares) who the Presidents of Germany and Ireland are?
The citizens of the UK are not supposed to care who the German President is. His role is what the UK Queens role should be: to carry out protocoll when nothing is controversial (the Queen does this bit OK) but is there to make difficult decisions when they need to be taken, including when to get the Supreme Court involved.
King Felipe of Spain, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emperor Akihito of Japan and King Harold of Norway are all well known.
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
I fear engineering a higher authority acting like a parent incurs a cost for society. Undermines the notion that we are all equal and share responsibility for solving our problems and defining what the nation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Responsibility is my primary worry, In life, if there is a higher authority that looks after things for you, you don’t have to grow up and take responsibility.
I don't think that Monarchy has any meaningful effect in that dimension within the UK.
I think it makes a subtle, but real difference. It holds us back a bit.
That said, when Monarchy decouples celebrity, sycophancy and glamour from politics, I think it more than makes up for it. That is why I support the Monarchy.
Conservatism: know your place Liberalism: people can change places Socialism: there shouldn't be places Nationalism: this is our place Brexit: this is our plaice
Conservatism: know your place Liberalism: people can change places Socialism: there shouldn't be places Nationalism: this is our place Brexit: this is our plaice
Conservatism: know your place Liberalism: people can change places Socialism: there shouldn't be places Nationalism: this is our place Brexit: this is our plaice
Conservatism: know your place Liberalism: people can change places Socialism: there shouldn't be places Nationalism: this is our place Brexit: this is our plaice
Conservatism: know your place Liberalism: people can change places Socialism: there shouldn't be places Nationalism: this is our place Brexit: this is our plaice
Maybe we could have five days of hearing at the Supreme Court on what the Brexit solution should be, and let them rule on that too?
You say in jest, but being serious their position is presumably to work out a clear answer or solution to a complex issue, but the problem before the country is not one of complexity, not really. The solutions are well known, it's getting democratic endosesment of them either throught parliamentary representatives or the people that has been the problem, not coming up with an answer.
I feel like the phrase 'won't go down well with moderate MPs' automatically appears in stories regarding the Labour leadership, and is about as meaningful as an extra space after a full stop.
Conservatism: know your place Liberalism: people can change places Socialism: there shouldn't be places Nationalism: this is our place Brexit: this is our plaice
Comments
. You've been dreaming about Nicola again...
And then got very excitied when they realised that helium was so expensive.
And then got very disappointed when they realised their licenses didn't allow them to exploit it, and that it would be incredibly difficult to get out of Kurdistan.
https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/1173941780586356737?s=19
#nevertrumps like lots of his policies and will totally vote for him rather than third party like in 2016.
All the best performing states, with the exception of New Mexico and Nevada, are safely Republican (like TX) or safely Democrat (like NY).
That works for me. The referendum is invalid.
By the was there are plenty of Monarchs in this world who you have not heard of and don't care about.
I would say more people have heard of Queen Elizabeth IInd than any other Head of State on earth bar maybe Trump.
The monarchy helps with promoting brand UK immensely in that respect
Two political outsiders will compete in a run-off vote to become Tunisia's next president after they topped the first round of voting...
Media Mogul Mr Karoui, 56, is running for office from behind bars after he was detained last month on charges of money laundering and tax fraud, which he has denied.
He is still able to stand for election despite his arrest but he was not allowed to vote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-49726045
The key really is the early states: remember the Republican caucuses in 2016. Ted Cruz won. Trump was second. Rubio third.
Who became betting market favourite in the immediate aftermath?
Why, it was Marco Rubio.
Who is going to outperform in Iowa, and who will underperform?
an interesting article from the Guardian a few days ago looking at the change in wages and cost of living since 1969.
Basically wage growth has run ahead of most basic prices. The big exception of course being property, particularly in the South East. But many food stuffs are now far cheaper than the inflation adjusted costs from 50 years ago. Beer is substantially more expensive but petrol is only vey slightly dearer (£1.26 a litre compared to £1.20 in 1969 inflation adjusted value.)
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/sep/14/50p-britons-living-costs-1969-spending
Part is longevity but they also have a presence and history to them that gives gravitas and interest.
They are written about and read about. They humanise the state.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49727513
I’m the only republican in my family. My mother, wife and mother-in-law all revel in the royals. To me it’s an affront to meritocracy, is a genetic lottery, and doesn’t even work on any strategic, political or logical basis.
One to watch.
Spot on. It also undermines the concept that success is based on talent and hard work, which is a conservative principle as well as an Old Labour one.
I think it's a canard.
If Johnson hadn't committed literally this week to a very short transition, member states might be persuaded that customs checks could happen away from the border by the time they were needed, if at all.
Fair point.
Until the monarchists get a royal they don’t like.
Then it doesn’t work in practice either.
I’d keep Liz, then knock the whole thing on the head when she goes to the great monarch in the sky.
I think the idea of working for a wage is a generally good principle that should apply to everyone, whether or not they are born or married to a German dynasty.
https://yougov.dk/news/2015/09/08/monarchy-here-stay/
Judges are people employed to uphold laws written by us together.
It's literally no different.
Nobody is denying the popularity of the monarchy!
As I implied earlier, I’d lose a referendum on republicanism if it were restricted to my own close family.
Doesn’t make it right, nor unworthy of debate.
Plus of course both Prince William and Harry and Meghan and Kate for example have all done paid work at some point as well as carrying out their royal duties
There are political aims, and there are political methods. Political aims are legitimate, but not all methods to achieve them are.
He really hasn’t. The welfare True. Although they haven’t worked in a greasy spoon every morning to make ends meet, at least not to my knowledge.
The clue is in the name I suppose: Labour.
In Scandanavia and the Netherlands, their well developed welfare states have turned them into lardy arsed couch potatoes with the life expectancy of mayflies.
Liberalism: people can change places
Socialism: there shouldn't be places
Nationalism: this is our place
Brexit: this is our plaice
That said, when Monarchy decouples celebrity, sycophancy and glamour from politics, I think it more than makes up for it. That is why I support the Monarchy.
Imperialism: your place is our place?