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.
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
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.
Very astute observation... that one's really got me thinking. Plus there's a joke in there about tightening your belts, but I can't quite make it work.
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
Communism: place is theft
Nah, sorry, to make that work you have to wilfully misunderstand the 'property is theft' mantra.
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
Imperialism: your place is our place?
The EU CFP - your plaice are our plaice.
Autocorrect made that 'your plaice are our price,' which might prove prescient...
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
Monarchy = Socialism!
No government control of most of the economy = socialism
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.
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
Monarchy = Socialism!
No government control of most of the economy = socialism
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.
Very astute observation... that one's really got me thinking. Plus there's a joke in there about tightening your belts, but I can't quite make it work.
I think the truth is more grim.
At the bottom of the heap, with no prospects, then the logic is small pleasures like junk food, booze and drugs rather than a long life. Who wants to be a pauper forever?
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
Monarchy = Socialism!
No government control of most of the economy = socialism
America = Republic = Capitalism!
So what, America had our monarchy at one time before the USA was formed and was not socialist then either
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
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
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
Communism: place is theft
Nah, sorry, to make that work you have to wilfully misunderstand the 'property is theft' mantra.
That's why I always drink herbal tea. All proper tea is theft...
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.
Very astute observation... that one's really got me thinking. Plus there's a joke in there about tightening your belts, but I can't quite make it work.
I think the truth is more grim.
At the bottom of the heap, with no prospects, then the logic is small pleasures like junk food, booze and drugs rather than a long life. Who wants to be a pauper forever?
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.
Very astute observation... that one's really got me thinking. Plus there's a joke in there about tightening your belts, but I can't quite make it work.
Having been here for over a fortnight now, there certainly are overweight people in the US, but not nearly as many as I might have expected. To be fair I have mostly been out on the hiking trails. Maybe they are all sitting indoors eating donuts, who knows?
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.
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 fnation 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
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
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
Imperialism: your place is our place?
+1
Communism: all places are equal; but some are more equal than others
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.
Very astute observation... that one's really got me thinking. Plus there's a joke in there about tightening your belts, but I can't quite make it work.
Having been here for over a fortnight now, there certainly are overweight people in the US, but not nearly as many as I might have expected. To be fair I have mostly been out on the hiking trails. Maybe they are all sitting indoors eating donuts, who knows?
Which part are you in. i used to work in Ohio and the cities were not too bad but when you got out into the rural areas, then to me it was eye opening, I mean the size of the people was astounding,
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
Communism: place is theft
Nah, sorry, to make that work you have to wilfully misunderstand the 'property is theft' mantra.
That's why I always drink herbal tea. All proper tea is theft...
Reminds me of a running joke I used to have with the (lovely) east european staff at the in-office Starbucks when I worked...
Me: Venti tea please Them: What flavour? Me: Tea flavour Them: Yes but what tea flavour? Me: Tea flavour etc...
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
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 fnation 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
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
They have the right to walk away, renounce their status. To answer your question, I'd swap with the queen, and announce the shutting down of the family business. It'd be worth a try.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
Then we should abolish the institution to end the nightmare of being born into it?
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
I'm happy to swap places with Harry for a night, just to experience temporarily being a Royal.
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
Imperialism: your place is our place?
+1
Communism: all places are equal; but some are more equal than others
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.
bout and read about. They humanise the state.
I fnation 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
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
First off: When did I last mention jobs for life?
Secondly, you forget the hereditary principle just like the Kims in SOCIALIST North Korea, and all the pomp and circumstance, just like those parades in SOCIALIST North Korea!
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.
Very astute observation... that one's really got me thinking. Plus there's a joke in there about tightening your belts, but I can't quite make it work.
Having been here for over a fortnight now, there certainly are overweight people in the US, but not nearly as many as I might have expected. To be fair I have mostly been out on the hiking trails. Maybe they are all sitting indoors eating donuts, who knows?
Which part are you in. i used to work in Ohio and the cities were not too bad but when you got out into the rural areas, then to me it was eye opening, I mean the size of the people was astounding,
It's difficult to get nutritious food in large (no pun intended) parts of the US. And yes, in a society where people drive everywhere you're probably not going to see the larger ones out walking.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
I agree with that completely. It’s another reason why we should abolish it. The idea that you are born into that straightjacketed life is utterly inhumane.
While acknowledging such extreme interpretation of a day's events can be true, I must say I find it hard to take really obvious editorialising, and prefer even my biased news to at least pretend to take a neutral tone. Even when its on people I don't like when the story really guns for them I get some sympathy for them. You know the sort of thing eg 'Pitiful Jeremy Corbyn desperately tried to do x', and so on.
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 fnation is about.
Scandavian nations seem ge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Indeed, Sweden and Canada have constitutional monarchies, the USA is a Republic
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it wod the law couldn’t intervene .
What wshould 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.
bout and read about. They humanise the state.
I fnation 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
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
First off: When did I last mention jobs for life?
First off, without people knowing that's why you equate monarchy and socialism your comment makes no sense, so you are relying on us remembering it and don't need to mention it every time, therefore your not mentioning it this time is absolutely irrelevant.
I'm perfectly relaxed about it, it just makes no sense even with a force North Korea reference.
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
Must say I thought it wa a penalty in the Liverpool game, but then a clear dive let off by VAR (on the common con of there was contact, despite them already going down before it occurred)
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.
bout and read about. They humanise the state.
I fnation 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
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
First off: When did I last mention jobs for life?
Secondly, you forget the hereditary principle just like the Kims in SOCIALIST North Korea, and all the pomp and circumstance, just like those parades in SOCIALIST North Korea!
So, I put it to you: MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
[and relax!]
You've put it to us many times and no one buys it.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
I'm happy to swap places with Harry for a night, just to experience temporarily being a Royal.
Yeah, I'd give that a shot too, although I expect she'd be demanding.
Being a royal looks a major pain in the arse; I'd much rather be a non royal Duke. Virtually all the perks, none of the downside.
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.
At the other extreme you have Switzerland, whose presidency rotates each year between the 7 members of the Federal government. The idea is to always have a well-known figure to add dignity to ceremonies, while avoiding any hint of personality cult around any single person. Many Swiss people struggle to remember which one is currently doing it. I always found that pretty appealing.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it wod the law couldn’t intervene .
What wshould 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?
bout and read about. They humanise the state.
I fnation is about.
Scandavian nations seem to have no problems with equality. By contrast, Republican America has huge inequality.
I think it's a canard.
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
First off: When did I last mention jobs for life?
First off, without people knowing that's why you equate monarchy and socialism your comment makes no sense, so you are relying on us remembering it and don't need to mention it every time, therefore your not mentioning it this time is absolutely irrelevant.
I'm perfectly relaxed about it, it just makes no sense even with a force North Korea reference.
YOU mentioned "Jobs for life" in this current thread, Kle4:
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism
And then there's the hereditary principle plus the pomp and circumstance, like in Socialist North Korea.
I think both Lord Pannick and Lord Keen did well today .
I think it wod the law couldn’t intervene .
What wshould 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.
bout and read about. They humanise the state.
I fnation 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
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
First off: When did I last mention jobs for life?
First off, without people knowing that's why you equate monarchy and socialism your comment makes no sense, so you are relying on us remembering it and don't need to mention it every time, therefore your not mentioning it this time is absolutely irrelevant.
I'm perfectly relaxed about it, it just makes no sense even with a force North Korea reference.
Family that hasn't worked for generations, living off the state?
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.
bout and read about. They humanise the state.
I fnation is about.
I think it's a canard.
Monarchy = Socialism!
You know Sunil, regularly repeating the same old bollocks doesn't make it right. Just saying.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism, and therefore the same as monarchy which also is not a job for life in most monarchies anymore.
First off: When did I last mention jobs for life?
Secondly, you forget the hereditary principle just like the Kims in SOCIALIST North Korea, and all the pomp and circumstance, just like those parades in SOCIALIST North Korea!
So, I put it to you: MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
[and relax!]
You've put it to us many times and no one buys it.
YOU mentioned "Jobs for life" in this current thread, Kle4:
It's funny, you were clearly able to read my post as you quote part of it, and yet you've completely ignored the point of it. I know I mentioned jobs for life. But your comment made no sense without us knowing that's what you so often claim is the key part of socialism, because your point clearly isn't about pomp and heriditary principal a la north korea alone, else you'd say Monarchy = North Korea, not Monarchy = Socialism. Since you stated the latter, the ridiculous jobs for life gag was clearly part of it, why even bother to deny that. It's like you were telling a knock knock joke but started with 'who's there?'. We all know what the preceding line was even without you mentioning it this time.
While acknowledging such extreme interpretation of a day's events can be true, I must say I find it hard to take really obvious editorialising, and prefer even my biased news to at least pretend to take a neutral tone. Even when its on people I don't like when the story really guns for them I get some sympathy for them. You know the sort of thing eg 'Pitiful Jeremy Corbyn desperately tried to do x', and so on.
Who knew being rude and petty would harm diplomacy?!
Boris should not have ran away then he would not have been rude and petty
Not one we agree on this Malc, the host should provide a suitable setting for a press conference, not expose his guest to protests, that's what he gets (and rightly) at home.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Interesting. You haven't actually offered any justification for his actions though, just launched into a rant about Boris, which isn't what my question was about.
I fail to see what justification he had to miss the press conference other than he knew he had no answers so used a pathetic excuse to avoid being questioned by the press, simple as that .
Well, you may fail to see that, but again, I didn't ask you what you thought of Boris's behaviour, I asked you to justify the PM of Luxembourg's behaviour. 'I think he was right' is all you've said, without explaining why.
Who knew being rude and petty would harm diplomacy?!
Boris should not have ran away then he would not have been rude and petty
Not one we agree on this Malc, the host should provide a suitable setting for a press conference, not expose his guest to protests, that's what he gets (and rightly) at home.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Interesting. You haven't actually offered any justification for his actions though, just launched into a rant about Boris, which isn't what my question was about.
I fail to see what justification he had to miss the press conference other than he knew he had no answers so used a pathetic excuse to avoid being questioned by the press, simple as that .
Well, you may fail to see that, but again, I didn't ask you what you thought of Boris's behaviour, I asked you to justify the PM of Luxembourg's behaviour. 'I think he was right' is all you've said, without explaining why.
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.
At the other extreme you have Switzerland, whose presidency rotates each year between the 7 members of the Federal government. The idea is to always have a well-known figure to add dignity to ceremonies, while avoiding any hint of personality cult around any single person. Many Swiss people struggle to remember which one is currently doing it. I always found that pretty appealing.
Rather like the Moderators of the various presbyterian Kirks in Scotland. It always seemed to me that the journos can never remember which is which each year so they rather tended to go to the RC and Episcopalian [= Anglican] bishops instead when they needed a quote from the religious side of public life.
YOU mentioned "Jobs for life" in this current thread, Kle4:
It's funny, you were clearly able to read my post as you quote part of it, and yet you've completely ignored the point of it. I know I mentioned jobs for life. But your comment made no sense without us knowing that's what you so often claim is the key part of socialism, because your point clearly isn't about pomp and heriditary principal a la north korea alone, else you'd say Monarchy = North Korea, not Monarchy = Socialism. Since you stated the latter, the ridiculous jobs for life gag was clearly part of it, why even bother to deny that. It's like you were telling a knock knock joke but started with 'who's there?'. We all know what the preceding line was even without you mentioning it this time.
I didn't mention "jobs for life" tonight - YOU did!
"I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism"
Who knew being rude and petty would harm diplomacy?!
Boris should not have ran away then he would not have been rude and petty
Not one we agree on this Malc, the host should provide a suitable setting for a press conference, not expose his guest to protests, that's what he gets (and rightly) at home.
However Boris is turning out to be as big a yellow belly as May was in meeting real people. If he cannot get out there with a microphone etc and talk over a few people he is in the wrong job. He made himself look the fool rather than going out and making the other guy look like the fool. No Backbone.
What do you make of how the Luxembourg PM behaved Malc? Genuinely interested.
He had a press conference organised and he attended, I think he was right and cannot believe Boris was so scared he could not go out and bumble and bluster for a minute or two. It seems to be the Tory way, if they do not have bussed in Tory drones and any real public get involved they are out the back door pronto. Spineless useless cretin. Then you get the morons going on about how England won the war single handedly and saved these people to really show how far down the toilet the country has sank, slagging off Luxembourg because UK has a bigger population , really pathetic. How low can UK go. Overall it showed up UK for what it is at present , a banana republic run by spivs and full of morons wittering on about wars from another century. Almost as pathetic as those idiots supporting 1690.
Interesting. You haven't actually offered any justification for his actions though, just launched into a rant about Boris, which isn't what my question was about.
I fail to see what justification he had to miss the press conference other than he knew he had no answers so used a pathetic excuse to avoid being questioned by the press, simple as that .
Well, you may fail to see that, but again, I didn't ask you what you thought of Boris's behaviour, I asked you to justify the PM of Luxembourg's behaviour. 'I think he was right' is all you've said, without explaining why.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
They have the right to walk away, renounce their status. To answer your question, I'd swap with the queen, and announce the shutting down of the family business. It'd be worth a try.
They have that right, but that would be like you doing something that upsets all the people in the world closest to you, to the point where they may never speak to you again
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
They have the right to walk away, renounce their status. To answer your question, I'd swap with the queen, and announce the shutting down of the family business. It'd be worth a try.
They have that right, but that would be like you doing something that upsets all the people in the world closest to you, to the point where they may never speak to you again
Then we should abolish the institution to end the nightmare of being born into it?
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
They have the right to walk away, renounce their status. To answer your question, I'd swap with the queen, and announce the shutting down of the family business. It'd be worth a try.
They have that right, but that would be like you doing something that upsets all the people in the world closest to you, to the point where they may never speak to you again
Not to mention loosing all that income and privilege.
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.
Very astute observation... that one's really got me thinking. Plus there's a joke in there about tightening your belts, but I can't quite make it work.
Having been here for over a fortnight now, there certainly are overweight people in the US, but not nearly as many as I might have expected. To be fair I have mostly been out on the hiking trails. Maybe they are all sitting indoors eating donuts, who knows?
Which part are you in. i used to work in Ohio and the cities were not too bad but when you got out into the rural areas, then to me it was eye opening, I mean the size of the people was astounding,
For the next week I am up in the hills of South Dakota. There are some strangely dressed people here, but a majority of them are non obsese.
Possibilities are (a) Blue and White (33) + Likud (32) with Netanyahu the junior or (b) Blue and White(33) + Liebermann (10) + Left (10) + Arab (12) [though doubtful if Liebermann will accept sharing with Arab]
Doesn't seem possible for Likud to put together a coalition of 61+ except as junior partner to Blue and White.
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.
That I feel is where you're badly wrong. Friendly societies, cooperatives, building societies, credit unions, and to an extent, charities, are ordinary people clubbing together to mutual benefit. Which is why the outcomes of those ventures are almost always positive. The welfare state isn't that. It is the opposite. It is the state absorbing within itself, power over peoples' welfare. The Government is the client and the people have no role other than to be endlessly grateful for what they themselves pay for, regardless of how poor the outcome.
Possibilities are (a) Blue and White (33) + Likud (32) with Netanyahu the junior or (b) Blue and White(33) + Liebermann (10) + Left (10) + Arab (12) [though doubtful if Liebermann will accept sharing with Arab}
Doesn't seem possible for Likud to put together a coalition of 61+ except as junior partner to Blue and White.
Has an Arab Party (as opposed to individual) ever been part of an Israeli coalition?
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
I'm happy to swap places with Harry for a night, just to experience temporarily being a Royal.
Yeah, I'd give that a shot too, although I expect she'd be demanding.
Being a royal looks a major pain in the arse; I'd much rather be a non royal Duke. Virtually all the perks, none of the downside.
A very interesting section in the arguments for Cherry in the SC is an area which talks about the Gina Miller case and Article 50 .
In a nutshell Cherry et al are arguing that the court came to the wrong conclusion then because parties agreed Article 50 couldn’t be unilaterally revoked .
This meant that initially rights could be seen to fall away automatically after 2 years , so that led the court agreeing that Article 50 had to be authorized by parliament.
Now because of the ECJ ruling that wouldn’t be the case , parliament could unilaterally revoke article 50.
Essentially Cherry is adding another argument re European WA , because rights now wouldn’t automatically fall away when MPs authorized Article 50 they weren’t in fact giving the government a blank cheque.
That prorogation stops MPs from acting to preserve those rights.
I think the interesting or say bizarre thing here is 4 of the judges who ruled with Gina Miller are part of the SC.
How will they take being told they were wrong then ? Of course before the ECJ case they may have made the right decision but it still seems a bit strange to be arguing on this point given you’d not want to alienate any judges .
Of course judges are probably thick skinned but still .
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.
That I feel is where you're badly wrong. Friendly societies, cooperatives, building societies, credit unions, and to an extent, charities, are ordinary people clubbing together to mutual benefit. Which is why the outcomes of those ventures are almost always positive. The welfare state isn't that. It is the opposite. It is the state absorbing within itself, power over peoples' welfare. The Government is the client and the people have no role other than to be endlessly grateful for what they themselves pay for, regardless of how poor the outcome.
Well, if you've never had cause to need help through difficult times you must truly be a LuckyGuy.
If on the other hand there have been times when you've needed help in my opinion and experience it's far preferable to be able to receive it as a legal right rather than hope for a charitable hand-out.
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.
That I feel is where you're badly wrong. Friendly societies, cooperatives, building societies, credit unions, and to an extent, charities, are ordinary people clubbing together to mutual benefit. Which is why the outcomes of those ventures are almost always positive. The welfare state isn't that. It is the opposite. It is the state absorbing within itself, power over peoples' welfare. The Government is the client and the people have no role other than to be endlessly grateful for what they themselves pay for, regardless of how poor the outcome.
And that’s what divides us. You see the state us as something separate from the rest of us for some reason, rather than just another way we group together to solve problems we cannot solve alone. The welfare state is positive, far more positive than what preceded it.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
I'm happy to swap places with Harry for a night, just to experience temporarily being a Royal.
Yeah, I'd give that a shot too, although I expect she'd be demanding.
Being a royal looks a major pain in the arse; I'd much rather be a non royal Duke. Virtually all the perks, none of the downside.
And gold toilets apparently.
Must have been an inside job! I mean how can you remove and then drag out a heavy item like a solid gold loo without security noticing?
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
They have the right to walk away, renounce their status. To answer your question, I'd swap with the queen, and announce the shutting down of the family business. It'd be worth a try.
They have that right, but that would be like you doing something that upsets all the people in the world closest to you, to the point where they may never speak to you again
Not to mention loosing all that income and privilege.
The issue I have with the Royal family is that all too often in the last 250 years they've been a backdoor for the most feckless of foreigners to get into the UK. Don't want to work, but want to be in the UK, sucking on the taxpayers teat? Don't worry about filling in forms, marry a Royal.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
They have the right to walk away, renounce their status. To answer your question, I'd swap with the queen, and announce the shutting down of the family business. It'd be worth a try.
They have that right, but that would be like you doing something that upsets all the people in the world closest to you, to the point where they may never speak to you again
Not to mention loosing all that income and privilege.
Possibilities are (a) Blue and White (33) + Likud (32) with Netanyahu the junior or (b) Blue and White(33) + Liebermann (10) + Left (10) + Arab (12) [though doubtful if Liebermann will accept sharing with Arab}
Doesn't seem possible for Likud to put together a coalition of 61+ except as junior partner to Blue and White.
Has an Arab Party (as opposed to individual) ever been part of an Israeli coalition?
Don't think so. I don't think they've had such a high share before. Many arabs supported the Blue and White party as well.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
I'm happy to swap places with Harry for a night, just to experience temporarily being a Royal.
Yeah, I'd give that a shot too, although I expect she'd be demanding.
Being a royal looks a major pain in the arse; I'd much rather be a non royal Duke. Virtually all the perks, none of the downside.
And gold toilets apparently.
Must have been an inside job! I mean how can you remove and then drag out a heavy item like a solid gold loo without security noticing?
Have there been a spate of burglaries there or was this just a flash in the pan?
A very interesting section in the arguments for Cherry in the SC is an area which talks about the Gina Miller case and Article 50 .
In a nutshell Cherry et al are arguing that the court came to the wrong conclusion then because parties agreed Article 50 couldn’t be unilaterally revoked .
This meant that initially rights could be seen to fall away automatically after 2 years , so that led the court agreeing that Article 50 had to be authorized by parliament.
Now because of the ECJ ruling that wouldn’t be the case , parliament could unilaterally revoke article 50.
Essentially Cherry is adding another argument re European WA , because rights now wouldn’t automatically fall away when MPs authorized Article 50 they weren’t in fact giving the government a blank cheque.
That prorogation stops MPs from acting to preserve those rights.
I think the interesting or say bizarre thing here is 4 of the judges who ruled with Gina Miller are part of the SC.
How will they take being told they were wrong then ? Of course before the ECJ case they may have made the right decision but it still seems a bit strange to be arguing on this point given you’d not want to alienate any judges .
Of course judges are probably thick skinned but still .
The judges won't necessarily regard the mistake (if it is that) as being theirs. They were not asked to rule on the unilateral revocability of A50. If the assumptions change, so perhaps does the judgment. In other words, the conclustion can be sound but the premises flawed, and that shifts the blame somewhat away from them.
A lot of people slag off the Royal Family for their so called pampered lives, but would they swap places with them? As long as your'e not starving to death I think it's always better not to be a Royal, I think they have had a nightmare being born into it
I'm happy to swap places with Harry for a night, just to experience temporarily being a Royal.
Yeah, I'd give that a shot too, although I expect she'd be demanding.
Being a royal looks a major pain in the arse; I'd much rather be a non royal Duke. Virtually all the perks, none of the downside.
And gold toilets apparently.
Must have been an inside job! I mean how can you remove and then drag out a heavy item like a solid gold loo without security noticing?
Have there been a spate of burglaries there or was this just a flash in the pan?
Possibilities are (a) Blue and White (33) + Likud (32) with Netanyahu the junior or (b) Blue and White(33) + Liebermann (10) + Left (10) + Arab (12) [though doubtful if Liebermann will accept sharing with Arab}
Doesn't seem possible for Likud to put together a coalition of 61+ except as junior partner to Blue and White.
Has an Arab Party (as opposed to individual) ever been part of an Israeli coalition?
Don't think so. I don't think they've had such a high share before. Many arabs supported the Blue and White party as well.
In other repeat-election news, Spain goes back to the polls in November.
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.
The point is that it makes vast sums of money for this country. It also provides an important non-political head of state.
Possibilities are (a) Blue and White (33) + Likud (32) with Netanyahu the junior or (b) Blue and White(33) + Liebermann (10) + Left (10) + Arab (12) [though doubtful if Liebermann will accept sharing with Arab}
Doesn't seem possible for Likud to put together a coalition of 61+ except as junior partner to Blue and White.
Has an Arab Party (as opposed to individual) ever been part of an Israeli coalition?
Don't think so. I don't think they've had such a high share before. Many arabs supported the Blue and White party as well.
I say this with every Israeli election, but maybe some hope for the future? (If not quite this time round).
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.
The point is that it makes vast sums of money for this country. It also provides an important non-political head of state.
I'm sure there's plenty of visitors to Versailles in Republican France...
Israeli girl asked on the news who she would be voting for said her Rabbi had told her to vote for Netanyahu. 'So who are you voting for?' asked Jeremy Bowen. "Netanyahu' she answered looking at him as though he was stupid!
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.
That I feel is where you're badly wrong. Friendly societies, cooperatives, building societies, credit unions, and to an extent, charities, are ordinary people clubbing together to mutual benefit. Which is why the outcomes of those ventures are almost always positive. The welfare state isn't that. It is the opposite. It is the state absorbing within itself, power over peoples' welfare. The Government is the client and the people have no role other than to be endlessly grateful for what they themselves pay for, regardless of how poor the outcome.
And that’s what divides us. You see the state us as something separate from the rest of us for some reason, rather than just another way we group together to solve problems we cannot solve alone. The welfare state is positive, far more positive than what preceded it.
You've both got good points. The state is coercive in its nature. All states are. But that's unavoidable. Someone has to have a monopoly on violence. The only questions are how that body is constituted and how it encourages the maximum buy-in from the population under its dominion. As far as I'm concerned, its legitimacy is continuously renewed by having a rolling democratic process, and ensuring that basic rights are secured: property, life, liberty save for evenly applied and proportionate punishment for predefined and democratically enacted legislation, physical and psychological security. The latter point has consequences. Nobody is born with a penny to their name, so the state must be the final guarantor against starvation and exposure. Obviously it's better that people self-organise so active intervention is a last resort, but the last resort has to be unequivocal, and unconditional. That's the contract between people and the state; it's the whole point of the state. Without those provisions, violence ensues. Because even deeply moral people will, if necessary, hurt someone else to preserve their own life. The trick to preserving the monopoly on violence is to not allow those conditions to manifest.
I'd love it to be true, but I suspect the Scottish survation poll is push polling. I doubt support for independence has decreased in light of the last two months.
I'd love it to be true, but I suspect the Scottish survation poll is push polling. I doubt support for independence has decreased in light of the last two months.
They have asked the correct question - Remain vs Leave.
Comments
Plus there's a joke in there about tightening your belts, but I can't quite make it work.
Autocorrect made that 'your plaice are our price,' which might prove prescient...
At the bottom of the heap, with no prospects, then the logic is small pleasures like junk food, booze and drugs rather than a long life. Who wants to be a pauper forever?
Me: Venti tea please
Them: What flavour?
Me: Tea flavour
Them: Yes but what tea flavour?
Me: Tea flavour
etc...
Herbal 'tea' is not tea; it's an infusion.
To answer your question, I'd swap with the queen, and announce the shutting down of the family business. It'd be worth a try.
Secondly, you forget the hereditary principle just like the Kims in SOCIALIST North Korea, and all the pomp and circumstance, just like those parades in SOCIALIST North Korea!
So, I put it to you: MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
[and relax!]
"Who ate all the pies? You did, Britain!"
Caused terrible trouble when the Eurythmics (who I also love) were commissioned to provide another score.
I'm perfectly relaxed about it, it just makes no sense even with a force North Korea reference.
Being a royal looks a major pain in the arse; I'd much rather be a non royal Duke. Virtually all the perks, none of the downside.
I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism
And then there's the hereditary principle plus the pomp and circumstance, like in Socialist North Korea.
Coat being sought ...
You should know by now it's just to troll HYUFD
The clue is in the title:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/series/the-politics-sketch
"I've seen it a hundred times and I still don't even understand why jobs for life is the defining aspect of socialism"
Possibilities are (a) Blue and White (33) + Likud (32) with Netanyahu the junior
or (b) Blue and White(33) + Liebermann (10) + Left (10) + Arab (12) [though doubtful if Liebermann will accept sharing with Arab]
Doesn't seem possible for Likud to put together a coalition of 61+ except as junior partner to Blue and White.
In a nutshell Cherry et al are arguing that the court came to the wrong conclusion then because parties agreed Article 50 couldn’t be unilaterally revoked .
This meant that initially rights could be seen to fall away automatically after 2 years , so that led the court agreeing that Article 50 had to be authorized by parliament.
Now because of the ECJ ruling that wouldn’t be the case , parliament could unilaterally revoke article 50.
Essentially Cherry is adding another argument re European WA , because rights now wouldn’t automatically fall away when MPs authorized Article 50 they weren’t in fact giving the government a blank cheque.
That prorogation stops MPs from acting to preserve those rights.
I think the interesting or say bizarre thing here is 4 of the judges who ruled with Gina Miller are part of the SC.
How will they take being told they were wrong then ? Of course before the ECJ case they may have made the right decision but it still seems a bit strange to be arguing on this point given you’d not want to alienate any judges .
Of course judges are probably thick skinned but still .
If on the other hand there have been times when you've needed help in my opinion and experience it's far preferable to be able to receive it as a legal right rather than hope for a charitable hand-out.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1174066006546948100
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1174066016583921665
That wouldn't go down well here....
But that's unavoidable. Someone has to have a monopoly on violence. The only questions are how that body is constituted and how it encourages the maximum buy-in from the population under its dominion.
As far as I'm concerned, its legitimacy is continuously renewed by having a rolling democratic process, and ensuring that basic rights are secured: property, life, liberty save for evenly applied and proportionate punishment for predefined and democratically enacted legislation, physical and psychological security.
The latter point has consequences. Nobody is born with a penny to their name, so the state must be the final guarantor against starvation and exposure. Obviously it's better that people self-organise so active intervention is a last resort, but the last resort has to be unequivocal, and unconditional. That's the contract between people and the state; it's the whole point of the state. Without those provisions, violence ensues. Because even deeply moral people will, if necessary, hurt someone else to preserve their own life. The trick to preserving the monopoly on violence is to not allow those conditions to manifest.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1174067128951037953?s=21