If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
Well quite - the SNP should have, may have laughed that one out of court. I'd guess there is some anti-monarchist sentiment within the independence movement though so it's probably a decent political issue for unionists to focus on to try and peel off votes from the indy side.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
Is this, alongside the current rigmarole, not an argument for an elected and actively political head of state? I understand that is not how things are done here, but really, it seems that the Queen may have said she was happy to be used politically in Indyref (as long as nobody admitted that was what she was doing) and she may have given the current PM the go ahead or even the idea itself of this prorogation (see Private Eye today). Obviously the monarch DOES act politically and just likes to be SEEN not to. That is much more dishonest than an elected political head of state doing what they have a mandate to do.
It is indeed a huge boost for the republican cause. That is the measure of Cameron's calamitous, blundering arrogance.
Which is Brexit going to destroy: the Monarchy, the Union, the Tories, the Labour party, the two-party system... or all of the above?
In any event, it's laughable that some thought Brexit would spell the beginning of the end for the EU.
Brexit, if it ever happens, could still destroy the EU over the long term. The potential is clearly there.
But, it seems like its going to destroy things closer to home, long before that.
Quite possibly the only thing Brexit will destroy is... Brexit.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
It was only a matter of time before your next volte-face.
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
I don't recall. I think the idea was to make it illegal for HM to be sovereign of both Scotland and rUK. It was all part of the project Fear stuff - like voting against indy being the only way to remain in the EU. But I have no idea what the current incumbent would have thought of it - and don't expect the notion came from Buckingham House.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
Is Jo Swinson, Ripley?
Helga from Allo Allo apparently
Boris Johnson as Rene, Nigel Farage as Mimi Labonq and Jeremy Corbyn as the Colonel - it could be a big hit.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
Is Jo Swinson, Ripley?
Helga from Allo Allo apparently
Boris Johnson as Rene, Nigel Farage as Mimi Labonq and Jeremy Corbyn as the Colonel - it could be a big hit.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
Do you espouse such divisive views on the doorstep in Epping Hemnall @HYUFD? I feel you are probably a very different guy IRL?
Such divisive views? It is not me using an expletive when someone expresses an opinion but I do espouse traditional conservative views yes
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
I am not a pure capitalist and never have been, I care more about conservatism than capitalism and far more voters support cutting inheritance tax than the top rate of income tax for example.
You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition
Someone has to stand up for the stinking rich and their inherited privilege I suppose.
I've said before, there must a critical mass/tipping point, at which the Lib Dem surge will go viral - as it were - as everyone realises they are credible contenders, and rushes to support them as a viable alternative to Brexit AND Corbyn.
What is that tipping point? It's got to be consistently beating Labour in polls, AND polling 25-30%, I think.
So they are not far away. And we are not far away from a huge realignment, when Labour are pushed into the shadows (where they belong) and the Lib Dems return as the main centre-left party of government and opposition,
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
I am not a pure capitalist and never have been, I care more about conservatism than capitalism and far more voters support cutting inheritance tax than the top rate of income tax for example.
You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition
Someone has to stand up for the stinking rich and their inherited privilege I suppose.
The inheritance tax threshold was raised to £1 million benefiting large numbers of ordinary families while the very rich still paid it under the Tories
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
Well quite - the SNP should have, may have laughed that one out of court. I'd guess there is some anti-monarchist sentiment within the independence movement though so it's probably a decent political issue for unionists to focus on to try and peel off votes from the indy side.
It always has been, though 'decent' is perhaps too strong for anyone with any familiarity with the situation (Not meant as a criticism of your posting which is very speculative in wording_. In recent years the topic has been firmly left to the people to decide after indy (quite correctly too).
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really
I agree with you. I find this new "woke" world quite bewildering. The peer pressure to conform to silly new-age conventions is very illiberal. Mills would not have approved.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
Is Jo Swinson, Ripley?
Helga from Allo Allo apparently
Boris Johnson as Rene, Nigel Farage as Mimi Labonq and Jeremy Corbyn as the Colonel - it could be a big hit.
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
Well quite - the SNP should have, may have laughed that one out of court. I'd guess there is some anti-monarchist sentiment within the independence movement though so it's probably a decent political issue for unionists to focus on to try and peel off votes from the indy side.
It always has been, though 'decent' is perhaps too strong for anyone with any familiarity with the situation (Not meant as a criticism of your posting which is very speculative in wording_. In recent years the topic has been firmly left to the people to decide after indy (quite correctly too).
I meant decent as in potentially politically advantageous, not decent decent
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really
I agree with you. I find this new "woke" world quite bewildering. The peer pressure to conform to silly new-age conventions is very illiberal. Mills would not have approved.
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
I think the SNP proposal was that HMQ would do the Opening of the Scottish Parliament, etc, directly, which would be different to the position in Canada/Australia which have a Governor-General as her representative, and I believe HMG said that Scotland could have a Governor-General or become a Republic, but not have the Queen directly.
I've said before, there must a critical mass/tipping point, at which the Lib Dem surge will go viral - as it were - as everyone realises they are credible contenders, and rushes to support them as a viable alternative to Brexit AND Corbyn.
What is that tipping point? It's got to be consistently beating Labour in polls, AND polling 25-30%, I think.
So they are not far away. And we are not far away from a huge realignment, when Labour are pushed into the shadows (where they belong) and the Lib Dems return as the main centre-left party of government and opposition,
Bring it on!
Absolutely, Mr Byronic. And if big business decides to desert the Tories and pour in resources to back the Lib Dems, there is no knowing how far and how fast the political landscape may change in this country.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
I am not a pure capitalist and never have been, I care more about conservatism than capitalism and far more voters support cutting inheritance tax than the top rate of income tax for example.
You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition
Someone has to stand up for the stinking rich and their inherited privilege I suppose.
Morris_Dancer said: The super pro-Remain types are not going to vote twice for the Lib Dems, so they've lost rather than gained potential support. And if their numbers are currently rising that doesn't dispel the fact that they've put a ceiling on that support by deciding a referendum result should be ignored in favour of an electoral result, which could be won by 35% support from the electorate.
Reply:
You are quite right, Mr Dancer, when you write about individual electors and their restricted opportunities of voting twice.
However, I think you also need to take into account the business community, whose interests have been pretty well wrecked by the Conservatives`self-indulgence and short-sightedness. The investment banker community, hedge fund managers and other spivs and chances will love the uncertainty that the Conservatives have given them to gamble with the country`s future.
But while the Conservatives may be flush with donations from these chancers, the business community, who prefer certainty and stability, may well turn and take a second look at what the Lib Dems are offering. After all, the Lib Dems did give them five years of stable government during the Coalition years. And now they are being given the chance to put an end to all this Brexit nonsense, just like that.
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really
I agree with you. I find this new "woke" world quite bewildering. The peer pressure to conform to silly new-age conventions is very illiberal. Mills would not have approved.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
Is Jo Swinson, Ripley?
Luciana Berger = Jones.
Starmer = Ash for purely robotic reasons.
The Tory Party is obviously Kane, a gutted steaming corpse once Brexit has fully erupted from its chest.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
I am not a pure capitalist and never have been, I care more about conservatism than capitalism and far more voters support cutting inheritance tax than the top rate of income tax for example.
You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition
Yet again, you have a failure of comprehension. I analysed your points defending private education, pointing out that they were flat assertions and questionable. I have not delivered any conclusion about the overall merits of it other than to point out there are problems that cut against the long term economic health of this country. I would be interested in arguments against that, or arguments orthogonal to that, say on liberal principles. Perhaps a defence of the idea that stratification does somehow increase the quality of state schools?
But you don't seem to be up to the challenge. Perhaps because your views haven't been thought through, or perhaps you're simply lazy. "Hard left" is such an indolent way to dismiss these questions. Have a bit more courage about your ability to defend your perspective intellectually rather than using cheap and embarrassingly inaccurate slogans.
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
I think the SNP proposal was that HMQ would do the Opening of the Scottish Parliament, etc, directly, which would be different to the position in Canada/Australia which have a Governor-General as her representative, and I believe HMG said that Scotland could have a Governor-General or become a Republic, but not have the Queen directly.
Thank you - that may well be what I recall. It seems odd, as on dissolution of the Treaty of Union the present UK would simply revert to the 1603-1707 situation, with the union of the Crowns but not of the KIngdoms. In which case HMG would seem to have proposed to very substantially change Royal powers and prerogatives, ie by forcing HM (effectively) to abdicate much of her position in Scotland?
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
That is your unionists for you , they just cannot stop lying
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
Well quite - the SNP should have, may have laughed that one out of court. I'd guess there is some anti-monarchist sentiment within the independence movement though so it's probably a decent political issue for unionists to focus on to try and peel off votes from the indy side.
Never been an issue, there are republicans in most parties in Scotland.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
Oh god, you're defending him??
Have you read the book?
We don't have to (though I have read all the Times extracts, in their miserable witlessness). We can just watch the TV snippet:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
Yes, David, it is just possible you may have said a bit too much. Yes.
You're right. The last thing we need is some kind of insight into what goes on in Government.
I've said before, there must a critical mass/tipping point, at which the Lib Dem surge will go viral - as it were - as everyone realises they are credible contenders, and rushes to support them as a viable alternative to Brexit AND Corbyn.
What is that tipping point? It's got to be consistently beating Labour in polls, AND polling 25-30%, I think.
So they are not far away. And we are not far away from a huge realignment, when Labour are pushed into the shadows (where they belong) and the Lib Dems return as the main centre-left party of government and opposition,
Bring it on!
Absolutely, Mr Byronic. And if big business decides to desert the Tories and pour in resources to back the Lib Dems, there is no knowing how far and how fast the political landscape may change in this country.
I've said before, there must a critical mass/tipping point, at which the Lib Dem surge will go viral - as it were - as everyone realises they are credible contenders, and rushes to support them as a viable alternative to Brexit AND Corbyn.
What is that tipping point? It's got to be consistently beating Labour in polls, AND polling 25-30%, I think.
So they are not far away. And we are not far away from a huge realignment, when Labour are pushed into the shadows (where they belong) and the Lib Dems return as the main centre-left party of government and opposition,
Bring it on!
I would like to point out that in 1983 the SDP Liberal Alliance were polling 25-26% just before the 1983 election, neck and neck with Labour, They got 25.4% of the actual votes cast. For this they were rewarded with a whopping 23 MPs.
I reckon 26% will get the LDs more seats in 2019 but it is certainly not close to the tipping point. Over 30%? Maybe.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
I am not a pure capitalist and never have been, I care more about conservatism than capitalism and far more voters support cutting inheritance tax than the top rate of income tax for example.
You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition
Someone has to stand up for the stinking rich and their inherited privilege I suppose.
The inheritance tax threshold was raised to £1 million benefiting large numbers of ordinary families while the very rich still paid it under the Tories
I know the Tories promised to increase it to £1 million, but it doesn't look like something Cameron/Osborne implemented before they lost office, and it was something May forgot about.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
Is Jo Swinson, Ripley?
Helga from Allo Allo apparently
Boris Johnson as Rene, Nigel Farage as Mimi Labonq and Jeremy Corbyn as the Colonel - it could be a big hit.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
I don't really give a fuck what you think you are. I'm telling you you look stupid when you misidentify someone as "hard left" when they're trying to defend capitalism. And it weakens the fight against the hard left: by lumping reasonable centrist views in with them, you sanitise their ideology. It's exactly the same mistake the hard left have long made. By making people like me out to be right wing, they make real right wingers seem more sensible than they are.
I am not a pure capitalist and never have been, I care more about conservatism than capitalism and far more voters support cutting inheritance tax than the top rate of income tax for example.
You also advocated scrapping private education too which is hard left on any definition
Someone has to stand up for the stinking rich and their inherited privilege I suppose.
The inheritance tax threshold was raised to £1 million benefiting large numbers of ordinary families while the very rich still paid it under the Tories
I know the Tories promised to increase it to £1 million, but it doesn't look like something Cameron/Osborne implemented before they lost office, and it was something May forgot about.
It's for a Tory-approved family - married (etc) couple plus extra for leaving the house to their direct children by blood. Tough luck on aunties.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
Oh god, you're defending him??
Have you read the book?
We don't have to (though I have read all the Times extracts, in their miserable witlessness). We can just watch the TV snippet:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
Yes, David, it is just possible you may have said a bit too much. Yes.
You're right. The last thing we need is some kind of insight into what goes on in Government.
Ah! So David "I'd be rather good at being prime minister" Cameron has done all this, so we can get an insight into the functioning of government?
Right? So it wasn't a desperate attempt to regain some credibility and importance with a massively misjudged revelation on a silly TV show which has now backfired catastrophically, further endangering the Union and the Monarchy, wrecking his reputation even more comprehensively, and earning the public fury of the Palace?
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really
I agree with you. I find this new "woke" world quite bewildering. The peer pressure to conform to silly new-age conventions is very illiberal. Mills would not have approved.
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
Well quite - the SNP should have, may have laughed that one out of court. I'd guess there is some anti-monarchist sentiment within the independence movement though so it's probably a decent political issue for unionists to focus on to try and peel off votes from the indy side.
Never been an issue, there are republicans in most parties in Scotland.
Today should be like a hits compilation in the SC.
Various interventions and crucially Lord Pannick is the last speaker .
At this point I’d say its impossible to call re the lawfulness of the decision however in terms of justiciable I’d put that as a much better chance as it’s hard to see the court giving a blank check to a future PM .
Unpopular view: the barristers matter much less than most people imagine. The idea that a Supreme Court judge is going to be persuaded by oratory or skilful argument is rather hopeful. These are extremely clever people who know all the tricks and who will have been thinking very deeply about this for themselves. The barristers’ most valuable function is poking holes in their opponents’ arguments.
I would agree with this. Also in the SC written advocacy in advance of the hearing is at least as important as oral advocacy, probably more so. In my cases there the written case took huge amounts of work and angst. My seniors spent a long time on their speech but the main purpose of standing up was so that the Justices could ask their questions arising from the written case and address their concerns. They didn't really need to hear what they had already read.
As we lawyers all know the purpose of the advocacy is to impress the clients and make them feel that their money was well spent.
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
"It is difficult to imagine anything other than horror in the Palace at David Cameron's revelations. Not just because he has broken the first rule. But because he has made it painfully clear that in 2014 he used the Queen for his own political purposes. And that she and her advisors thought that was OK."
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
Oh god, you're defending him??
Have you read the book?
We don't have to (though I have read all the Times extracts, in their miserable witlessness). We can just watch the TV snippet:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
Yes, David, it is just possible you may have said a bit too much. Yes.
You're right. The last thing we need is some kind of insight into what goes on in Government.
Ah! So David "I'd be rather good at being prime minister" Cameron has done all this, so we can get an insight into the functioning of government?
Right? So it wasn't a desperate attempt to regain some credibility and importance with a massively misjudged revelation on a silly TV show which has now backfired catastrophically, further endangering the Union and the Monarchy, wrecking his reputation even more comprehensively, and earning the public fury of the Palace?
No.
Telling comment by the bloke who made the documentary on Cameron - he feared losing Scotland more than he feared Brexit. ie why wouldn't you try to enlist the services of the Queen to try to keep her Kingdom together?
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really
I agree with you. I find this new "woke" world quite bewildering. The peer pressure to conform to silly new-age conventions is very illiberal. Mills would not have approved.
Yes holding individuals account for their actions, super illiberal...
It isn't that there was a bygone era where nobody knew better because there are always people who know that the racism or bigotry or other oppression is wrong; the oppressed. To use the argument "it was the past, it was worse then" is not a get out of jail free card.
Time to confess like Trudeau. I once blacked up and wore a fez. I was playing one of the Three Wise Men in a Christmas show at primary school. It was 1953.
Trudeau was also playing a genie in an Aladdin show, not a black and white minstrel.
Personally I cannot see what the fuss is about even if he has apologised
He also admits to wearing blackface and singing the banana boat song. That's his look out, the take away is he is not what he presents himself to be. I wonder what other skeletons?
He was singing a Harry Belafonte song in a school talent show, again I don't see what the fuss was about and why he needed to apologise really
I agree with you. I find this new "woke" world quite bewildering. The peer pressure to conform to silly new-age conventions is very illiberal. Mills would not have approved.
Yes holding individuals account for their actions, super illiberal...
It isn't that there was a bygone era where nobody knew better because there are always people who know that the racism or bigotry or other oppression is wrong; the oppressed. To use the argument "it was the past, it was worse then" is not a get out of jail free card.
It was also the millennium, not some distant vaudeville theatre in the days of empire
The BBC's royal correspondent on Cameron's appalling "revelation"
"Just as the first rule of Fight Club is that you do not talk about Fight Club, the first rule of the relationship between the prime minister and the Queen is that you never, ever talk about the relationship between the PM and the Queen.
I wonder what TSE and Nabavi think of their hero now? Cameron is a tosser and an imbecile. He is criminally negligent. Chuck him in jail.
He said he didn't say anything to her but had discussions with her private secretary, about what he doesn't say although I can well believe it was along the lines of: "Q Would she? A: No." Does it say in the book explicitly that he spoke with HMQ and asked this? Because that isn't how he described it this morning.
Oh god, you're defending him??
Have you read the book?
We don't have to (though I have read all the Times extracts, in their miserable witlessness). We can just watch the TV snippet:
"I don't want to say anything more about this, I'm sure some people would think, possibly even me, that I've already said a bit too much."
Yes, David, it is just possible you may have said a bit too much. Yes.
You're right. The last thing we need is some kind of insight into what goes on in Government.
Ah! So David "I'd be rather good at being prime minister" Cameron has done all this, so we can get an insight into the functioning of government?
Right? So it wasn't a desperate attempt to regain some credibility and importance with a massively misjudged revelation on a silly TV show which has now backfired catastrophically, further endangering the Union and the Monarchy, wrecking his reputation even more comprehensively, and earning the public fury of the Palace?
No.
Telling comment by the bloke who made the documentary on Cameron - he feared losing Scotland more than he feared Brexit. ie why wouldn't you try to enlist the services of the Queen to try to keep her Kingdom together?
And why exactly would you talk about it? Why would you break a fundamental rule of our Constitutional Monarchy, that prime ministerial communications with the sovereign remain utterly secret?
Why did Dave Cameron do that? Because he's a chateau bottled, copper fastened, top of the range KNOBBER.
I got as far as "hard left rant" and stopped reading. Just so you know, I talked about defending capitalism in my post. If you can't be bothered to read my contribution, please don't bother replying. For your sake as much as mine, because you look like a fool when you say things like that.
As you should know full well by now I am a traditional Tory not a pure free market liberal capitalist
You are anything but a traditional Tory. You are an unquestioning cult follower of a man totally unsuitable to be PM who has supported an English nationalist policy that is anti-business and economy wrecking. You are just a very simple right winger who is far more UKIP/BNP than Traditional Tory, who uses pathetic and childish epithets as though they are insults in exactly the same way as extremists always have throughout the ages.
I am more of a Tory than you given you are basically a free market liberal not a traditional conservative who for a time used the Tories as the best vehicle to keep Labour out and have now returned to your natural home in the Liberal Democrats
You really are a plonker of the first order. "I am more of a Tory than you..." FFS, Have you just stepped out of playground? No wonder the Conservative Party is going to hell in a handcart if you are representative (which you probably are) of the type of people that support it. Utterly pathetic.
And why exactly would you talk about it? Why would you break a fundamental rule of our Constitutional Monarchy, that prime ministerial communications with the sovereign remain utterly secret?
Why did Dave Cameron do that? Because he's a chateau bottled, copper fastened, top of the range KNOBBER.
Yes he possibly shouldn't have mentioned it. But as I suspected (and I have now listened to the recording of him) it was PS to PS. It's entirely possible that he believed that as it was one step removed from HMQ and he was rebuffed, that it added some harmless colour to his story. Had it been accepted then I'm sure nothing more would have been said about it.
It was their private secretaries. Plenty of stuff gets passed over the desk of the Royals' households without the Royals ever knowing about it.
Cameron's aristocratic wife, the daughter of Reggie Sheffield, 8th Baronet, will surely thump him with a rolling pin this evening.
Nah. It was the Queen's household, not the Queen. This is just spin but I perfectly understand if most people are unable to distinguish between the two. You especially.
Cameron's aristocratic wife, the daughter of Reggie Sheffield, 8th Baronet, will surely thump him with a rolling pin this evening.
Cameron won't give a fuck. He doesn't have BJ's pathological need to be liked. He'll trouser the book money, move on to his next venture and be serenely untroubled.
Cameron's aristocratic wife, the daughter of Reggie Sheffield, 8th Baronet, will surely thump him with a rolling pin this evening.
Nah. It was the Queen's household, not the Queen. This is just spin but I perfectly understand if most people are unable to distinguish between the two. You especially.
So you know more about the palace and the Queen, than.... the spokesmen for the Queen, at the palace? Righty-ho. Keep taking the anti-psychotics.
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
Well quite - the SNP should have, may have laughed that one out of court. I'd guess there is some anti-monarchist sentiment within the independence movement though so it's probably a decent political issue for unionists to focus on to try and peel off votes from the indy side.
Never been an issue, there are republicans in most parties in Scotland.
Cameron's aristocratic wife, the daughter of Reggie Sheffield, 8th Baronet, will surely thump him with a rolling pin this evening.
Cameron won't give a fuck. He doesn't have BJ's pathological need to be liked. He'll trouser the book money, move on to his next venture and be serenely untroubled.
I think you're absolutely wrong. Cameron is an old fashioned pragmatic Tory (a singularly dim one, as it turns out, but that's not the point here). He loves his country and his monarch.
My guess is he will be cringing right now, and deeply troubled by what he's done. And the public dressing down from his Queen will be bitter.
Cameron's aristocratic wife, the daughter of Reggie Sheffield, 8th Baronet, will surely thump him with a rolling pin this evening.
Cameron won't give a fuck. He doesn't have BJ's pathological need to be liked. He'll trouser the book money, move on to his next venture and be serenely untroubled.
I think you're absolutely wrong. Cameron is an old fashioned pragmatic Tory (a singularly dim one, as it turns out, but that's not the point here). He loves his country and his monarch.
My guess is he will be cringing right now, and deeply troubled by what he's done. And the public dressing down from his Queen will be bitter.
He's screwed himself over just to sell a book. Does he need the money? Could he have waited a few more years? Ludicrous man and not the first time his judgement has failed him.
I've said before, there must a critical mass/tipping point, at which the Lib Dem surge will go viral - as it were - as everyone realises they are credible contenders, and rushes to support them as a viable alternative to Brexit AND Corbyn.
What is that tipping point? It's got to be consistently beating Labour in polls, AND polling 25-30%, I think.
So they are not far away. And we are not far away from a huge realignment, when Labour are pushed into the shadows (where they belong) and the Lib Dems return as the main centre-left party of government and opposition,
Bring it on!
I would like to point out that in 1983 the SDP Liberal Alliance were polling 25-26% just before the 1983 election, neck and neck with Labour, They got 25.4% of the actual votes cast. For this they were rewarded with a whopping 23 MPs.
I reckon 26% will get the LDs more seats in 2019 but it is certainly not close to the tipping point. Over 30%? Maybe.
The thing about tipping points is that there is a sudden change. With three and maybe two half parties it's difficult to work out where that may be. It certainly won't be linear. The same is true of Climate Change, if we get to a tipping point where there's a positive feedback loop we are all in big trouble.
Cameron's aristocratic wife, the daughter of Reggie Sheffield, 8th Baronet, will surely thump him with a rolling pin this evening.
Nah. It was the Queen's household, not the Queen. This is just spin but I perfectly understand if most people are unable to distinguish between the two. You especially.
So you know more about the palace and the Queen, than.... the spokesmen for the Queen, at the palace? Righty-ho. Keep taking the anti-psychotics.
it just occurred to me that Brexit is like the alien in Alien. We hoped to harness it and use it, but it has morphed into a danger to everyone, and it bleeds pure acid.
Now we cower on the spaceship, wondering what, or who, it will eat next.
Does that make Revoke the escape podule?
Is Jo Swinson, Ripley?
Helga from Allo Allo apparently
Boris Johnson as Rene, Nigel Farage as Mimi Labonq and Jeremy Corbyn as the Colonel - it could be a big hit.
Who plays the part of the sexy French waitress Yvette?
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
I think the SNP proposal was that HMQ would do the Opening of the Scottish Parliament, etc, directly, which would be different to the position in Canada/Australia which have a Governor-General as her representative, and I believe HMG said that Scotland could have a Governor-General or become a Republic, but not have the Queen directly.
Thank you - that may well be what I recall. It seems odd, as on dissolution of the Treaty of Union the present UK would simply revert to the 1603-1707 situation, with the union of the Crowns but not of the KIngdoms. In which case HMG would seem to have proposed to very substantially change Royal powers and prerogatives, ie by forcing HM (effectively) to abdicate much of her position in Scotland?
There is the precedent of the Irish Free State, which had a Governor-General after Independence, despite Ireland previously being a separate realm. The difference there being that the Irish didn't particularly want to retain the monarch.
Today should be like a hits compilation in the SC.
Various interventions and crucially Lord Pannick is the last speaker .
At this point I’d say its impossible to call re the lawfulness of the decision however in terms of justiciable I’d put that as a much better chance as it’s hard to see the court giving a blank check to a future PM .
Unpopular view: the barristers matter much less than most people imagine. The idea that a Supreme Court judge is going to be persuaded by oratory or skilful argument is rather hopeful. These are extremely clever people who know all the tricks and who will have been thinking very deeply about this for themselves. The barristers’ most valuable function is poking holes in their opponents’ arguments.
I would agree with this. Also in the SC written advocacy in advance of the hearing is at least as important as oral advocacy, probably more so. In my cases there the written case took huge amounts of work and angst. My seniors spent a long time on their speech but the main purpose of standing up was so that the Justices could ask their questions arising from the written case and address their concerns. They didn't really need to hear what they had already read.
As we lawyers all know the purpose of the advocacy is to impress the clients and make them feel that their money was well spent.
So a clever and thorough barrister who is slow to respond and mumbles with a lisp, should be good value!
Cameron's aristocratic wife, the daughter of Reggie Sheffield, 8th Baronet, will surely thump him with a rolling pin this evening.
Cameron won't give a fuck. He doesn't have BJ's pathological need to be liked. He'll trouser the book money, move on to his next venture and be serenely untroubled.
I think you're absolutely wrong. Cameron is an old fashioned pragmatic Tory (a singularly dim one, as it turns out, but that's not the point here). He loves his country and his monarch.
My guess is he will be cringing right now, and deeply troubled by what he's done. And the public dressing down from his Queen will be bitter.
Interesting that the Palace has the time and the inclination to express the Queen’s displeasure about David Cameron’s comments but doesn’t have the inclination nor the time to condemn Randy Andy for hanging around with a convicted nonce.
As Scott approaches his 50,000th post what percentage were actually his own view ?
I don't understand the point of Scott P's posts. By all means put forward partisan views on politics but how can anyone spend 18 hours a day digging up random tweets and just sticking them on the forum? It's a waste of a life and I feel a bit sorry for him.
Having said that he does help confirm my pre existing views about twitter!
If Scotland were to gain independence would they retain HM as the Head of State ?
I believe that is the SNP position, yes. It would be a constitutional monarchy like several other Commonwealth nations.
I was forgetting: there were threats during indyref to make it illegal for the Queen to continue in that role for Scotland if it went independent. My memory is that theu originated in the Tory government or more probably the Tory Party - the usual suspects amongst the backbenchers.
How would it be illegal? Is it illegal in Canada or Australia?
Well quite - the SNP should have, may have laughed that one out of court. I'd guess there is some anti-monarchist sentiment within the independence movement though so it's probably a decent political issue for unionists to focus on to try and peel off votes from the indy side.
Never been an issue, there are republicans in most parties in Scotland.
Weren't the Reverend of Bath and Craig Murray Lib Dems prior to the coalition era? I guess people can change their minds on constitutional matters.
Nether of them as yet elected to any public office on policies diametrically opposed to ones previously supported by them (I have no idea what changes have occurred in their constitutional views).
In the changing mind stakes, switching from 'If you want democracy, down with crown' to SCon MSP fawning over HMQ, the Union & The Rangers is at the outer extremes of Damascene turns.
Interesting that the Palace has the time and the inclination to express the Queen’s displeasure about David Cameron’s comments but doesn’t have the inclination nor the time to condemn Randy Andy for hanging around with a convicted nonce.
We all know which is worse.
#Priorities
lol
I take it that means you dont want to discuss Dave making a tit of himself
Comments
Indeed substantially further back than the UK, let alone Israel!
Drunk Byronic/Sean = fuck'em all, rabid Bexiteer
Someone has to stand up for the stinking rich and their inherited privilege I suppose.
*****
I've said before, there must a critical mass/tipping point, at which the Lib Dem surge will go viral - as it were - as everyone realises they are credible contenders, and rushes to support them as a viable alternative to Brexit AND Corbyn.
What is that tipping point? It's got to be consistently beating Labour in polls, AND polling 25-30%, I think.
So they are not far away. And we are not far away from a huge realignment, when Labour are pushed into the shadows (where they belong) and the Lib Dems return as the main centre-left party of government and opposition,
Bring it on!
Reply:
You are quite right, Mr Dancer, when you write about individual electors and their restricted opportunities of voting twice.
However, I think you also need to take into account the business community, whose interests have been pretty well wrecked by the Conservatives`self-indulgence and short-sightedness. The investment banker community, hedge fund managers and other spivs and chances will love the uncertainty that the Conservatives have given them to gamble with the country`s future.
But while the Conservatives may be flush with donations from these chancers, the business community, who prefer certainty and stability, may well turn and take a second look at what the Lib Dems are offering. After all, the Lib Dems did give them five years of stable government during the Coalition years. And now they are being given the chance to put an end to all this Brexit nonsense, just like that.
The Tory Party is obviously Kane, a gutted steaming corpse once Brexit has fully erupted from its chest.
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1174658171543150603?s=20
David Cameron is lucky they shut Traitor's Gate.
I would be interested in arguments against that, or arguments orthogonal to that, say on liberal principles. Perhaps a defence of the idea that stratification does somehow increase the quality of state schools?
But you don't seem to be up to the challenge. Perhaps because your views haven't been thought through, or perhaps you're simply lazy. "Hard left" is such an indolent way to dismiss these questions. Have a bit more courage about your ability to defend your perspective intellectually rather than using cheap and embarrassingly inaccurate slogans.
Shudder.
Jesus Christ. David Cameron! How did I not realise he is THIS thick?
I reckon 26% will get the LDs more seats in 2019 but it is certainly not close to the tipping point. Over 30%? Maybe.
Weren't you told this before?
I know the Tories promised to increase it to £1 million, but it doesn't look like something Cameron/Osborne implemented before they lost office, and it was something May forgot about.
Right? So it wasn't a desperate attempt to regain some credibility and importance with a massively misjudged revelation on a silly TV show which has now backfired catastrophically, further endangering the Union and the Monarchy, wrecking his reputation even more comprehensively, and earning the public fury of the Palace?
https://twitter.com/Theuniondivvie/status/1168114350034493440?s=20
Swotty Theresa might have got away with it but cant until the blockage in front of her clears. Time to call Dynorod and remove three shits.
Telling comment by the bloke who made the documentary on Cameron - he feared losing Scotland more than he feared Brexit. ie why wouldn't you try to enlist the services of the Queen to try to keep her Kingdom together?
We want some bloodsport.
It isn't that there was a bygone era where nobody knew better because there are always people who know that the racism or bigotry or other oppression is wrong; the oppressed. To use the argument "it was the past, it was worse then" is not a get out of jail free card.
some seem strangely apt
http://www.anagramgenius.com/archive/david-cameron.html
Why did Dave Cameron do that? Because he's a chateau bottled, copper fastened, top of the range KNOBBER.
It was their private secretaries. Plenty of stuff gets passed over the desk of the Royals' households without the Royals ever knowing about it.
https://twitter.com/steve_hawkes/status/1174664475280138242
"The source told the BBC that "it serves no one's interests" for conversations between the PM and the Queen to be made public .
"It makes it very hard for the relationship to thrive," they added."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49756756
Cameron's aristocratic wife, the daughter of Reggie Sheffield, 8th Baronet, will surely thump him with a rolling pin this evening.
My guess is he will be cringing right now, and deeply troubled by what he's done. And the public dressing down from his Queen will be bitter.
The same is true of Climate Change, if we get to a tipping point where there's a positive feedback loop we are all in big trouble.
LOL
We all know which is worse.
#Priorities
Having said that he does help confirm my pre existing views about twitter!
In the changing mind stakes, switching from 'If you want democracy, down with crown' to SCon MSP fawning over HMQ, the Union & The Rangers is at the outer extremes of Damascene turns.
I take it that means you dont want to discuss Dave making a tit of himself