Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Veteran US pollster Frank Luntz is right – it will be the econ

SystemSystem Posts: 12,170
edited January 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Veteran US pollster Frank Luntz is right – it will be the economy not Iran that decides WH2020

The 2020 election will be decided on middle-class economic issues.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    Anyone here?
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    no
  • Nobody here but us chickens
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,720
    Is anyone surprised to find that tariffs are paid by consumer?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    Max Hastings says he would vote for Keir Starmer (he voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001)
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    HYUFD said:

    Max Hastings says he would vote for Keir Starmer (he voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001)

    That sort of loose talk will only upset the true believers.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    According to his people in Yemen, Lord Falconer is considering running as gender neutral Duchess of Sussex.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    edited January 2020
    Just back from tonight's Constituency Labour Party meeting (via the pub afterwards.)

    TBH there was next to no discussion of the leadership election, save for a short discussion on the timing of the CLP nomination meeting. CLP meetings are still in the grip of the far left, but so what given that only llittle over 5% of the total membership was in attendance. However, no-one spoke to try and portray the election result as some sort of victory, so at least we are not in wholesale denial, which in context is quite surprising. The defeated ex-MP didn't bother turning up.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    What is MalcolmG’s news? Couldn’t find it
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486

    Just back from tonight's Constituency Labour Party meeting (via the pub afterwards.)

    TBH there was next to no discussion of the leadership election, save for a short discussion on the timing of the CLP nomination meeting. CLP meetings are still in the grip of the far left, but so what given that only llittle over 5% of the total membership was in attendance. However, no-one spoke to try and portray the election result as some sort of victory, so at least we are not in wholesale denial, which in context is quite surprising. The defeated ex-MP didn't bother turning up.

    I thought you were a Tory?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    No.

    He's second in South Carolina, and third in Nevada.

    Still, that's a staggering result for a man no one's heard of.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    What is MalcolmG’s news? Couldn’t find it

    He’s much better and his wife while still poorly has turned the corner and is on the mend. He’s washing his turnips in the washing machine...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    No.

    He's second in South Carolina, and third in Nevada.

    Still, that's a staggering result for a man no one's heard of.
    I've taken everything above 400-1 for him to be president anyway.
  • rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    No.

    He's second in South Carolina, and third in Nevada.

    Still, that's a staggering result for a man no one's heard of.
    Without doubt.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    Saw a stat today that he has spent $110m on TV ads nationally since launching his campaign. Astonishingly poor return, even given this poll. Not convinced it isn't an outlier, and even if not you can't get smashed too badly in Iowa/NH and still get much momentum from 2nd place in SC.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,291

    What is MalcolmG’s news? Couldn’t find it

    malcolmg said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Of couse it was.

    The Iranians just have to come clean on this. A tragic accident will be accepted, albeit it a very bitter additional cost to the "slap" they gave the Americans. What will not be accepted is tampering with black box. And that will just feed into the notion that the Iranians can't be trusted on their nuclear bomb programme.

    Trump has always said they can't be trusted and the EU was naive to think they would play by the rules. Tehran can't give Trump a victory with the EU on top of his successful assassination of their top military master tactition.
    Mark, thanks for asking earlier , I am at hospital all day so no chance to reply. Wife has finally turned the corner , she has double pneumonia and was really bad till yesterday but has picked up last two days. Will be a long recovery for her but happy with that. I am still on antibiotics but getting better myself. So a lot happier then I have been this last week, which was a real stinker. Onwards and upwards, I am treating myself to a beer tonight.
    Only silver lining is I have lost all my blubber.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    Quincel said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    Saw a stat today that he has spent $110m on TV ads nationally since launching his campaign. Astonishingly poor return, even given this poll. Not convinced it isn't an outlier, and even if not you can't get smashed too badly in Iowa/NH and still get much momentum from 2nd place in SC.
    Yeah but I've now got an obscenely large green number against his name :D
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486

    What is MalcolmG’s news? Couldn’t find it

    He’s much better and his wife while still poorly has turned the corner and is on the mend. He’s washing his turnips in the washing machine...
    Thanks Carlotta, just found @malcolmg ‘s post. Good to hear and all best wishes to him and Mrs G.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,291
    Excellent news to hear Mr and Mrs Malc are getting better. :D
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    There are a bunch of US Democratic nomination state polls out.

    The most important of these is New Hampshire, and there's a poll out from Monmouth, which is regarded as an "A+" pollster by 538.

    They polled in three different ways. First they asked, including all the candidates names. Then they did a forced choice with just the top seven candidates, and finally they asked with just the top four: Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren.

    When all candidates were "on the menu", Buttigieg was in the lead with 20%, against 19% for Biden and 18% for Sanders. Cut the race down to the top four, and it Biden 24%, Buttigieg 23% and Sanders 21%.

    What's particularly interesting about this poll is that Biden picks up five points as the field narrows, while Buttigieg and Sanders pick up three.

    Away from NH, there were Fox News Polls for California, where Sanders is on 24% and has a narrow lead on Warren 21% and Biden 20%. Wisconsin, where the leaders are reversed. Nevada where it's Biden in the lead with Sanders, Steyer and Warren in hot pursuit. And South Carolina where it's an absolutely massive Biden lead over Steyer in second.
  • QuincelQuincel Posts: 4,042
    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    Saw a stat today that he has spent $110m on TV ads nationally since launching his campaign. Astonishingly poor return, even given this poll. Not convinced it isn't an outlier, and even if not you can't get smashed too badly in Iowa/NH and still get much momentum from 2nd place in SC.
    Yeah but I've now got an obscenely large green number against his name :D
    Intellectually I appreciate the difference between value and just trying to guess the winner, so that may be a smart move. But I just can't get my heart to believe it for Steyer, even as value.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    HYUFD said:

    Max Hastings says he would vote for Keir Starmer (he voted for Blair in 1997 and 2001)

    What would be quite interesting is if there were to be some polling on VI under different Labour leadership scenarios in the coming weeks.

    If it was found that Labour would poll more than a couple of percentage points worse if led by Ms 10 out of 10, then there might be some impact on the actual leadership vote by members.

    My drinking buddy, who is non political though more often than not votes Labour, is my focus group of 1. He has registered that there is a contest going on. He thinks Jess Phillips comes across as a real person, but didn't like the look of the woman from Bolton. We spent some time trying to work out whether this was the one from Salford or Wigan, to no avail as he couldn't remember the colour of her hair. He knew there was a man standing, but knew nothing about him, although when I revealed the back story of the grammar school boy (like him) who had made good he liked it.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    Just back from tonight's Constituency Labour Party meeting (via the pub afterwards.)

    TBH there was next to no discussion of the leadership election, save for a short discussion on the timing of the CLP nomination meeting. CLP meetings are still in the grip of the far left, but so what given that only llittle over 5% of the total membership was in attendance. However, no-one spoke to try and portray the election result as some sort of victory, so at least we are not in wholesale denial, which in context is quite surprising. The defeated ex-MP didn't bother turning up.

    I thought you were a Tory?
    Definitely not. A 2017 Labour voter supporting Leave. Just rejoined.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,652
    With a month to go, it could still plausibly be any of the top four candidates to win both or neither of the first two contests, even if Warren is a little less likely to do so than it seemed last week.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    edited January 2020
    Quincel said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Quincel said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    Saw a stat today that he has spent $110m on TV ads nationally since launching his campaign. Astonishingly poor return, even given this poll. Not convinced it isn't an outlier, and even if not you can't get smashed too badly in Iowa/NH and still get much momentum from 2nd place in SC.
    Yeah but I've now got an obscenely large green number against his name :D
    Intellectually I appreciate the difference between value and just trying to guess the winner, so that may be a smart move. But I just can't get my heart to believe it for Steyer, even as value.
    Here's my book at even money against Trump for the various Dems anyway.

    +9 Biden
    +4.5 Sanders
    +8.2 E Warren
    +9.3 Buttigieg
    +11.8 Klobuchar
    -20.1 Bloomberg
    +256.9 Steyer
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    No.

    He's second in South Carolina, and third in Nevada.

    Still, that's a staggering result for a man no one's heard of.
    I've taken everything above 400-1 for him to be president anyway.
    Well... it's your money.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,842
    HYUFD said:
    My knowledge of US constitutional law is sadly very limited - but I am not certain that this sort of resolution has anything other than symbolic effect.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    Someone wants 2 grand at 55 to back Yang for POTUS.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    Pulpstar said:

    Someone wants 2 grand at 55 to back Yang for POTUS.

    Somebody must be expecting the winter flu season to rip the heart out of the Dem field......
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609

    HYUFD said:
    My knowledge of US constitutional law is sadly very limited - but I am not certain that this sort of resolution has anything other than symbolic effect.
    If Trump ignores it, what are the Dems gonna do - impeach him?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    As an aside, from an intellectual point of view, there are two really important things to remember for Democratic Primary betting.

    Firstly, this is not "winner takes all". This is why Biden's massive lead in South Carolina matters. He could easily end up with 60% of the delegates there, while the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire could have (in theory at least) just 25% of the delegates from each.

    Secondly, it's important to think in terms of forced choice, given that so few of the candidates (probably just two) will still be in the game post Super Tuesday. And the most likely pair are Sanders and Biden. (Although it's entirely possible that Warren and Buttigieg outperform in NH and Iowa, and it ends up being Warren vs Buttigieg.)

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    Pulpstar said:

    Someone wants 2 grand at 55 to back Yang for POTUS.

    Ah Yang... Alongside Ms Clinton and Mr Bloomberg, the gift that keeps on giving.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,210
    edited January 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    As an aside, from an intellectual point of view, there are two really important things to remember for Democratic Primary betting.

    Firstly, this is not "winner takes all". This is why Biden's massive lead in South Carolina matters. He could easily end up with 60% of the delegates there, while the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire could have (in theory at least) just 25% of the delegates from each.

    Secondly, it's important to think in terms of forced choice, given that so few of the candidates (probably just two) will still be in the game post Super Tuesday. And the most likely pair are Sanders and Biden. (Although it's entirely possible that Warren and Buttigieg outperform in NH and Iowa, and it ends up being Warren vs Buttigieg.)

    Well yes obviously I've built a reasonable position on the main contenders. But the Steyer bet is a trading gambit:p.
    He's in the debate in January for one, polling OK in early states and actually can win some early delegates unlike a certain other billionaire ;)

    Can a man not dream :D ?!
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,125
    Foxy said:

    Is anyone surprised to find that tariffs are paid by consumer?

    Katie Hopkins IIRC is convinced that tariffs are paid by the producer.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Mugged us Orf!


  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,125
    @malcolmg

    Pleased to know that you and Mrs Malcolmg will be among the living for a while yet.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486

    Just back from tonight's Constituency Labour Party meeting (via the pub afterwards.)

    TBH there was next to no discussion of the leadership election, save for a short discussion on the timing of the CLP nomination meeting. CLP meetings are still in the grip of the far left, but so what given that only llittle over 5% of the total membership was in attendance. However, no-one spoke to try and portray the election result as some sort of victory, so at least we are not in wholesale denial, which in context is quite surprising. The defeated ex-MP didn't bother turning up.

    I thought you were a Tory?
    Definitely not. A 2017 Labour voter supporting Leave. Just rejoined.
    Really? Who did you vote for in December?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Big odds value alert, Steyer is 2nd in SC and NV poll.

    As an aside, from an intellectual point of view, there are two really important things to remember for Democratic Primary betting.

    Firstly, this is not "winner takes all". This is why Biden's massive lead in South Carolina matters. He could easily end up with 60% of the delegates there, while the winners in Iowa and New Hampshire could have (in theory at least) just 25% of the delegates from each.

    Secondly, it's important to think in terms of forced choice, given that so few of the candidates (probably just two) will still be in the game post Super Tuesday. And the most likely pair are Sanders and Biden. (Although it's entirely possible that Warren and Buttigieg outperform in NH and Iowa, and it ends up being Warren vs Buttigieg.)

    Well yes obviously I've built a reasonable position on the main contenders. But the Steyer bet is a trading gambit:p.
    He's in the debate in January for one, polling OK in early states and actually can win some early delegates unlike a certain other billionaire ;)

    Can a man not dream :D ?!
    He's also going to get null delegates in either Iowa or New Hampshire.

    He has next to no ground organisation in Nevada, which is a caucus state. He's also only in the low teens. It's quite possible he gets no delegate there.

    And he's basically below the 15% threshold in South Carolina, which means he'll only pick up delegates in perhaps half the precincts. That means that (assuming his vote share holds at current levels) he'll get about 10% of the SC delegates.

    So, while 400-1 might be value. It's not compelling value. His path to the nomination is incredibly narrow compared to even candidates like Klobuchar.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    My wife, who is a staunch monarchist, surprised me this evening by saying that most of the recent crises of the royal family were the fault of the Queen. Her view is that had the Queen lived and let live, Camilla, Meghan and Margaret would have led happier lives.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218
    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.

    The former Edward VIII, later Duke of Windsor, remained his title and even HRH even after negotiating with the Nazis in World War 2 to become King of England following a German victory.

    By comparison, Prince Harry didn't talk to the Queen before announcing something.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    My wife, who is a staunch monarchist, surprised me this evening by saying that most of the recent crises of the royal family were the fault of the Queen. Her view is that had the Queen lived and let live, Camilla, Meghan and Margaret would have led happier lives.
    She does seem like an interfering old cow.
  • Harry and Meghan will be fine, if there cash ever runs out which is probably Won't, Meghan will just do modelling or something.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    Dura_Ace said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    My wife, who is a staunch monarchist, surprised me this evening by saying that most of the recent crises of the royal family were the fault of the Queen. Her view is that had the Queen lived and let live, Camilla, Meghan and Margaret would have led happier lives.
    She does seem like an interfering old cow.
    Off to the Tower with you
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148

    Harry and Meghan will be fine, if there cash ever runs out which is probably Won't, Meghan will just do modelling or something.

    Or launch some vastly expensive new fashion range
  • Dura_Ace said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    My wife, who is a staunch monarchist, surprised me this evening by saying that most of the recent crises of the royal family were the fault of the Queen. Her view is that had the Queen lived and let live, Camilla, Meghan and Margaret would have led happier lives.
    She does seem like an interfering old cow.
    Bit harsh on Anabobazina's missus.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218

    Dura_Ace said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    My wife, who is a staunch monarchist, surprised me this evening by saying that most of the recent crises of the royal family were the fault of the Queen. Her view is that had the Queen lived and let live, Camilla, Meghan and Margaret would have led happier lives.
    She does seem like an interfering old cow.
    Bit harsh on Anabobazina's missus.
    That was my reaction too!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,228

    HYUFD said:
    My knowledge of US constitutional law is sadly very limited - but I am not certain that this sort of resolution has anything other than symbolic effect.
    It was a non binding resolution.

    Presidential powers to do military stuff in Iraq are currently based on a couple of congressional resolutions authorising military force.
    The constitutional position is unequivocal that the President must have congressional approval to declare war, but an enormous amount of wiggle room has developed over recent decades.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,228
    Foxy said:

    Is anyone surprised to find that tariffs are paid by consumer?

    On a regular basis, evidently.

    You’d think people would learn from this kind of object lesson...
    https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/01/09/business/japan-retailers-cheaper-us-foods/
    With the Japan-U.S. trade agreement going into force on Jan. 1, major Japanese supermarkets have started slashing prices on U.S. products affected by the tariff cuts in a bid to attract customers.

    Ito-Yokado Co. launched a six-day sale at some 130 outlets on Wednesday, lowering the prices on nine items, including the price of U.S. Angus loin steak by over 10 percent and oranges by 10 to 20 percent....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    edited January 2020
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me. Yes, they've behaved liked spoiled petulant brats. And they should have their money taken away.

    But he is the son of the Prince of Wales. And he's not actually done anything other behaved like a spoiled, pretulant brat. If we're going to have a Royal Family, then they are members through birth, and remain so unless they do something really heinous. I find it astonishing that there's far more talking of stripping HRH from Harry than from Prince Andrew. What is the bar, here? Because the bar has to be pretty high if Harry is to lose it, but it also seems to need to be pretty low if Andrew is not to lose it.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146
    Nice timing:

    UK nuclear weapons programme £1.3bn over budget

    The report said it was disappointing to see the MoD making similar mistakes to ones it made 30 years ago.

    Mr Cummings, who has been a harsh critic of defence procurement, has already held talks with Defence Secretary Ben Wallace about ways of tackling waste.

    Mr Wallace recently admitted there was a shortfall in the department's budget.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-51052124
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    From last year - but still worth a read....Karie & Seamus are still in post...

    The Tories have three other great weapons in their arsenal. The first is highlighted in the title of one of the best books on the party, John Ramsden’s “An Appetite for Power”. The Conservatives have always been quick to dump people or principles when they become obstacles to the successful pursuit of power. Theresa May immediately sacked her two chief advisers, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, after the party’s poor performance in 2017, whereas Jeremy Corbyn is still clinging on to Karie Murphy and Seumas Milne after Labour’s devastating failure last week.

    The second is patriotism. The Tories have always played this card better than any other party, whether in the form of imperialism in the 1870s or retaking the Falkland islands in the 1980s. They have been much aided in this by those radical intellectuals who admire any institution or cause so long as it is not British.

    No one should underestimate the party’s third weapon: jollity. The Conservatives have always been the party of “champagne and women and bridge”, to borrow a phrase from Hilaire Belloc, whereas the Liberals and Labour have been the parties of vegetarianism, book clubs and meetings. Conservatives are never happier than when mocking the left for its earnestness.


    https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/12/21/britains-tories-are-the-worlds-most-successful-party-heres-why
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,218

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.

    I'm really struggling to understand how they are more deserving to lose their HRH than Prince Andrew.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 12,146

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.

    So, HRH Got A Mind Of His Own = devalues the brand.

    But, HRH Kiddie Fiddler = retains brand value.

    As a marketing man (in my former life), I just can’t see what you’re on about.

    Incidentally, we’ve got a similar issue here in Sweden, although most Swedes care little. Mind you, nobody here has been named in a US lawsuit over underage sex. Nor has anyone stormed off in a huff to Canada.

    - “The loss of HRH: what Sweden’s royal changes mean for five princes and princesses”

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/sweden/the-loss-of-hrh-what-swedens-royal-changes-mean-for-five-princes-and-princesses-131664/

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.

    But, HRH Kiddie Fiddler
    Do you want to get OGH into trouble?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,623
    Sad news to wake up to, but confirms the earlier reports and aligns with the industry speculation over the past 48 hours.

    In the face of the evidence, Iran is going to be much better off quickly admitting they messed up, handing over the black boxes for analysis and paying compensation to those affected. Any other response is going to lead to an escalation.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Sandpit said:

    Sad news to wake up to, but confirms the earlier reports and aligns with the industry speculation over the past 48 hours.

    In the face of the evidence, Iran is going to be much better off quickly admitting they messed up, handing over the black boxes for analysis and paying compensation to those affected. Any other response is going to lead to an escalation.
    NYT has a good pull-together:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-ukraine.html
  • From last year - but still worth a read....Karie & Seamus are still in post...

    The Tories have three other great weapons in their arsenal. The first is highlighted in the title of one of the best books on the party, John Ramsden’s “An Appetite for Power”. The Conservatives have always been quick to dump people or principles when they become obstacles to the successful pursuit of power. Theresa May immediately sacked her two chief advisers, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, after the party’s poor performance in 2017, whereas Jeremy Corbyn is still clinging on to Karie Murphy and Seumas Milne after Labour’s devastating failure last week.

    The second is patriotism. The Tories have always played this card better than any other party, whether in the form of imperialism in the 1870s or retaking the Falkland islands in the 1980s. They have been much aided in this by those radical intellectuals who admire any institution or cause so long as it is not British.

    No one should underestimate the party’s third weapon: jollity. The Conservatives have always been the party of “champagne and women and bridge”, to borrow a phrase from Hilaire Belloc, whereas the Liberals and Labour have been the parties of vegetarianism, book clubs and meetings. Conservatives are never happier than when mocking the left for its earnestness.


    https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/12/21/britains-tories-are-the-worlds-most-successful-party-heres-why

    On ruthlessness, we should not forget the Stalinist purges carried out by Boris just last year, or for that matter the way David Cameron sacked MPs over the expenses scandal. On principles, Theresa May lifted policies from Ed Miliband and Boris from, erm, Jeremy Corbyn. One of the ironies of the 2019 election is the Tories learned all the right lessons from Corbyn's 2017 successes whereas Labour appeared to base their campaign on Theresa May's failure.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    From last year - but still worth a read....Karie & Seamus are still in post...

    The Tories have three other great weapons in their arsenal. The first is highlighted in the title of one of the best books on the party, John Ramsden’s “An Appetite for Power”. The Conservatives have always been quick to dump people or principles when they become obstacles to the successful pursuit of power. Theresa May immediately sacked her two chief advisers, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, after the party’s poor performance in 2017, whereas Jeremy Corbyn is still clinging on to Karie Murphy and Seumas Milne after Labour’s devastating failure last week.

    The second is patriotism. The Tories have always played this card better than any other party, whether in the form of imperialism in the 1870s or retaking the Falkland islands in the 1980s. They have been much aided in this by those radical intellectuals who admire any institution or cause so long as it is not British.

    No one should underestimate the party’s third weapon: jollity. The Conservatives have always been the party of “champagne and women and bridge”, to borrow a phrase from Hilaire Belloc, whereas the Liberals and Labour have been the parties of vegetarianism, book clubs and meetings. Conservatives are never happier than when mocking the left for its earnestness.


    https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/12/21/britains-tories-are-the-worlds-most-successful-party-heres-why

    On ruthlessness, we should not forget the Stalinist purges carried out by Boris just last year, or for that matter the way David Cameron sacked MPs over the expenses scandal.
    Or how the Tory party deals with leaders....."An appetite for power".
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,623

    Sandpit said:

    Sad news to wake up to, but confirms the earlier reports and aligns with the industry speculation over the past 48 hours.

    In the face of the evidence, Iran is going to be much better off quickly admitting they messed up, handing over the black boxes for analysis and paying compensation to those affected. Any other response is going to lead to an escalation.
    NYT has a good pull-together:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-ukraine.html
    Good piece. It’s clear that all the politicians don’t want this to escalate, which is good news.

    Also interesting that Iran has invited NTSB and Boeing to participate in the investigation, as it usual - although inviting them and letting them near the remain of the plane are two different things. Ironically, if they see with their own eyes what has been circulated by photo, that the remaining bits of the plane are covered in shrapnel, they won’t hang around for long. Their role is technical and not political, they are only interested in preventing more accidents.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,623

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.
    I would imagine that the agreement will be something like they can keep their titles if they go away and live a relatively quiet life somewhere, but if they want to shamelessly exploit their titles for money (In the opinion of the Queen, not a Hollywood lawyer) then they can expect to lose them.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.

    The brand was always supposed to be royal blood. I am not sure either of them has any. Not that this has necessarily been an obstacle in earlier history.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,868
    GIN1138 said:

    What is MalcolmG’s news? Couldn’t find it

    malcolmg said:

    Andy_JS said:
    Of couse it was.

    The Iranians just have to come clean on this. A tragic accident will be accepted, albeit it a very bitter additional cost to the "slap" they gave the Americans. What will not be accepted is tampering with black box. And that will just feed into the notion that the Iranians can't be trusted on their nuclear bomb programme.

    Trump has always said they can't be trusted and the EU was naive to think they would play by the rules. Tehran can't give Trump a victory with the EU on top of his successful assassination of their top military master tactition.
    Mark, thanks for asking earlier , I am at hospital all day so no chance to reply. Wife has finally turned the corner , she has double pneumonia and was really bad till yesterday but has picked up last two days. Will be a long recovery for her but happy with that. I am still on antibiotics but getting better myself. So a lot happier then I have been this last week, which was a real stinker. Onwards and upwards, I am treating myself to a beer tonight.
    Only silver lining is I have lost all my blubber.

    Good news indeed.

    Although the forum won’t be quite the same without malc’s blubber.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.
    I would imagine that the agreement will be something like they can keep their titles if they go away and live a relatively quiet life somewhere, but if they want to shamelessly exploit their titles for money (In the opinion of the Queen, not a Hollywood lawyer) then they can expect to lose them.
    That's why this should all have been sorted out before hand - not rushed out against the direct explicit instructions of the queen.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.
    I would imagine that the agreement will be something like they can keep their titles if they go away and live a relatively quiet life somewhere, but if they want to shamelessly exploit their titles for money (In the opinion of the Queen, not a Hollywood lawyer) then they can expect to lose them.
    That's why this should all have been sorted out before hand - not rushed out against the direct explicit instructions of the queen.
    Honestly, who cares?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    Mrs Koenig, whoever she is, does not know what she is talking about. This peerage cannot be ‘renounced’ for two very good reasons:

    1) It was created more than a year ago.

    2) Even if it were not, first generation peerages cannot be renounced. Only inherited peerages.

    The title could be removed, but it would require an act of Parliament. I don’t quite see that happening.

    A more likely scenario would be that they simply stop using it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.
    I would imagine that the agreement will be something like they can keep their titles if they go away and live a relatively quiet life somewhere, but if they want to shamelessly exploit their titles for money (In the opinion of the Queen, not a Hollywood lawyer) then they can expect to lose them.
    That's why this should all have been sorted out before hand - not rushed out against the direct explicit instructions of the queen.
    Honestly, who cares?
    That’s kinda my view too. The PB outrage bus is overcrowded!
  • From last year - but still worth a read....Karie & Seamus are still in post...

    The Tories have three other great weapons in their arsenal. The first is highlighted in the title of one of the best books on the party, John Ramsden’s “An Appetite for Power”. The Conservatives have always been quick to dump people or principles when they become obstacles to the successful pursuit of power. Theresa May immediately sacked her two chief advisers, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, after the party’s poor performance in 2017, whereas Jeremy Corbyn is still clinging on to Karie Murphy and Seumas Milne after Labour’s devastating failure last week.

    The second is patriotism. The Tories have always played this card better than any other party, whether in the form of imperialism in the 1870s or retaking the Falkland islands in the 1980s. They have been much aided in this by those radical intellectuals who admire any institution or cause so long as it is not British.

    No one should underestimate the party’s third weapon: jollity. The Conservatives have always been the party of “champagne and women and bridge”, to borrow a phrase from Hilaire Belloc, whereas the Liberals and Labour have been the parties of vegetarianism, book clubs and meetings. Conservatives are never happier than when mocking the left for its earnestness.


    https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/12/21/britains-tories-are-the-worlds-most-successful-party-heres-why

    On ruthlessness, we should not forget the Stalinist purges carried out by Boris just last year, or for that matter the way David Cameron sacked MPs over the expenses scandal.
    Or how the Tory party deals with leaders....."An appetite for power".
    That is the odd thing. Theresa May was allowed to stay on as leader after 2017. And the 1922 Committee banged their desks, and even after repeated WA failures, it took forever for 48 letters to go in (and will I be alone in wondering if Brady can actually count?) and then when there was a confidence vote, May won, and the Cabinet also did not attempt to force her out.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.
    I would imagine that the agreement will be something like they can keep their titles if they go away and live a relatively quiet life somewhere, but if they want to shamelessly exploit their titles for money (In the opinion of the Queen, not a Hollywood lawyer) then they can expect to lose them.
    That's why this should all have been sorted out before hand - not rushed out against the direct explicit instructions of the queen.
    Honestly, who cares?
    If they want to get taxpayer money the I do. If they don't, then good luck to them.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?



    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.
    I would imagine that the agreement will be something like they can keep their titles if they go away and live a relatively quiet life somewhere, but if they want to shamelessly exploit their titles for money (In the opinion of the Queen, not a Hollywood lawyer) then they can expect to lose them.
    That's why this should all have been sorted out before hand - not rushed out against the direct explicit instructions of the queen.
    Honestly, who cares?
    If they want to get taxpayer money the I do. If they don't, then good luck to them.
    Yes. As a couple they are exceptinaly boring to me although in the celebrity world they are apparently big squeezes. In that scenario they cannot need and do not deserve any of my UK tax money for which there are so many more deserving uses.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If they want to "step away" from the Royal Family then they should. Since they have branded themselves as "Sussex" losing "HRH" would appear to be less of an issue than renouncing "Sussex". "His Grace, the Duke of Sussex" is not too shabby.....

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.
    I would imagine that the agreement will be something like they can keep their titles if they go away and live a relatively quiet life somewhere, but if they want to shamelessly exploit their titles for money (In the opinion of the Queen, not a Hollywood lawyer) then they can expect to lose them.
    That's why this should all have been sorted out before hand - not rushed out against the direct explicit instructions of the queen.
    Honestly, who cares?
    That’s kinda my view too. The PB outrage bus is overcrowded!
    For someone who doesn’t care, you seem to spend a lot of time commenting on it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424

    From last year - but still worth a read....Karie & Seamus are still in post...

    The Tories have three other great weapons in their arsenal. The first is highlighted in the title of one of the best books on the party, John Ramsden’s “An Appetite for Power”. The Conservatives have always been quick to dump people or principles when they become obstacles to the successful pursuit of power. Theresa May immediately sacked her two chief advisers, Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy, after the party’s poor performance in 2017, whereas Jeremy Corbyn is still clinging on to Karie Murphy and Seumas Milne after Labour’s devastating failure last week.

    The second is patriotism. The Tories have always played this card better than any other party, whether in the form of imperialism in the 1870s or retaking the Falkland islands in the 1980s. They have been much aided in this by those radical intellectuals who admire any institution or cause so long as it is not British.

    No one should underestimate the party’s third weapon: jollity. The Conservatives have always been the party of “champagne and women and bridge”, to borrow a phrase from Hilaire Belloc, whereas the Liberals and Labour have been the parties of vegetarianism, book clubs and meetings. Conservatives are never happier than when mocking the left for its earnestness.


    https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/12/21/britains-tories-are-the-worlds-most-successful-party-heres-why

    On ruthlessness, we should not forget the Stalinist purges carried out by Boris just last year, or for that matter the way David Cameron sacked MPs over the expenses scandal.
    Or how the Tory party deals with leaders....."An appetite for power".
    That is the odd thing. Theresa May was allowed to stay on as leader after 2017. And the 1922 Committee banged their desks, and even after repeated WA failures, it took forever for 48 letters to go in (and will I be alone in wondering if Brady can actually count?) and then when there was a confidence vote, May won, and the Cabinet also did not attempt to force her out.
    They were afraid of who might replace her. If Johnson had lost the whip, she’d have been out within minutes.

    Ironic, the way things turn out.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, who cares?

    If they want to get taxpayer money the I do. If they don't, then good luck to them.
    Then you should be opposed to the whole concept of the monarchy.

    Jumping onboard the outrage bus because it happens to be the lefty-liberal Harry and Meghan just screams hypocrisy.

    The conservative royals like Andrew and co. who offer nothing, its fine for them to leach off the taxpayer though clearly.

    Unbelievable.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    Bloomberg down to 9 (yes, nine) on Betfair exchange this morning.

    Dafuq.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    edited January 2020
    Conservatives are triggered more by an Instagram post than the Duke of Edinburgh literally putting someone in hospital by driving when he probably shouldn’t.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,720
    The correlation between Leavers and Meghan haters seems very strong indeed.

    On the day the WDA passed the Commons, a dusky immigrant was harassed out of the country. Coincidence or not?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    News bulletin began: government officials from the US, UK and Canada are all now suggesting....

    Was preparing for a Harry and Meghan update whereas the item was about Iran and the plane ffs.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Good morning, everyone.

    Dr. Foxy, your comment would have more merit if other royals (even the Queen, in the aftermath of Diana's death) hadn't also had a lot of rubbish poured on them by the media over the years.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    edited January 2020
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    Mugged us Orf!


    Stripping them of cash is a fairly simple process.

    But stripping them of titles or HRH is (a) far from simple, requiring an Act of Attainder, and (b) a gross over-reaction.
    If they use it for commercial purposes?

    And an Act of Attainder might be a bit of an overkill (in historical senses, literally...)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#United_Kingdom

    Other sources suggest According to Mrs Koenig*, Prince Harry can simply renounce his peerage. However, to rescind his HRH title, The Queen would likely need to issue a Letters Patent.

    https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/will-prince-harry-lose-his-place-in-the-line-of-succession-135960/

    * Great name for a royal historian: http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/p/recognized-expert-on-british-and.html

    When Princess Margaret was confronted with her options over Townsend it was losing her HRH that swung it.....
    It just seems like a huge over-reaction, to me.
    Even if they use it for commercial purposes?

    His Royal HighnessThe Duke of Sussex recommends....

    If t

    And it does appear to be a Letters Patent issue, not a Bill/Act of Attainder...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Highness#United_Kingdom
    Why shouldn't they be allowed to use it how the hell they like? It's their title.
    Devalues the rest of the brand. And it's not "their" title, it's the monarchy's.
    I would imagine that the agreement will be something like they can keep their titles if they go away and live a relatively quiet life somewhere, but if they want to shamelessly exploit their titles for money (In the opinion of the Queen, not a Hollywood lawyer) then they can expect to lose them.
    That's why this should all have been sorted out before hand - not rushed out against the direct explicit instructions of the queen.
    Honestly, who cares?
    If they want to get taxpayer money the I do. If they don't, then good luck to them.
    Nah. It's all part and parcel of having a royal family. Let's not get het up about rounding errors.

    I find myself unable to care what on earth they do. Hearing the various details behind it still leaves me cold.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, who cares?

    If they want to get taxpayer money the I do. If they don't, then good luck to them.
    Then you should be opposed to the whole concept of the monarchy.

    Jumping onboard the outrage bus because it happens to be the lefty-liberal Harry and Meghan just screams hypocrisy.

    The conservative royals like Andrew and co. who offer nothing, its fine for them to leach off the taxpayer though clearly.

    Unbelievable.
    I said nothing about any of that, you've literally made all of that up and then judged me on the basis of it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,424
    TOPPING said:

    News bulletin began: government officials from the US, UK and Canada are all now suggesting....

    Was preparing for a Harry and Meghan update whereas the item was about Iran and the plane ffs.

    That is, in all seriousness, a very, very horrible story. It reflects extremely badly on Iran.

    The irony is that old fool Khamenei will now probably shoot several of his own generals for this cock up, which will damage the government further.

    The further irony is of course that whether it’s true or not people will believe it because it’s exactly the sort of stupid error the Iranians would make and then try to cover up (cf those Marines and their boats).
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Remember when PB was obsessed with how many votes Boris had lost in a row and ruminating as to whether he would have the shortest reign of any prime minister ?

  • felixfelix Posts: 15,164
    Foxy said:

    The correlation between Leavers and Meghan haters seems very strong indeed.

    On the day the WDA passed the Commons, a dusky immigrant was harassed out of the country. Coincidence or not?

    Unspoofable!!!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,720

    Good morning, everyone.

    Dr. Foxy, your comment would have more merit if other royals (even the Queen, in the aftermath of Diana's death) hadn't also had a lot of rubbish poured on them by the media over the years.

    The fact that our toxic tabloids are hostile to others is not a great defence. We don't have to take their crap.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, who cares?

    If they want to get taxpayer money the I do. If they don't, then good luck to them.
    Then you should be opposed to the whole concept of the monarchy.

    Jumping onboard the outrage bus because it happens to be the lefty-liberal Harry and Meghan just screams hypocrisy.

    The conservative royals like Andrew and co. who offer nothing, its fine for them to leach off the taxpayer though clearly.

    Unbelievable.
    I said nothing about any of that, you've literally made all of that up and then judged me on the basis of it.
    Of course I’ve judged you. You’re getting your knickers in a twist over an Instagram post.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868
    TOPPING said:



    Nah. It's all part and parcel of having a royal family. Let's not get het up about rounding errors.

    I find myself unable to care what on earth they do. Hearing the various details behind it still leaves me cold.

    No we should slim down the whole circus, the taxpayer should only fund those that are directly in line for the throne and their families. That's the Queen, Charles and William. Everyone else should go and get jobs. Andrew, Edward and the rest of the hangers on are unnecessary for us to fund.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:



    Nah. It's all part and parcel of having a royal family. Let's not get het up about rounding errors.

    I find myself unable to care what on earth they do. Hearing the various details behind it still leaves me cold.

    No we should slim down the whole circus, the taxpayer should only fund those that are directly in line for the throne and their families. That's the Queen, Charles and William. Everyone else should go and get jobs. Andrew, Edward and the rest of the hangers on are unnecessary for us to fund.
    I mean Meghan and Harry have literally said they are going to “get jobs”.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,868

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, who cares?

    If they want to get taxpayer money the I do. If they don't, then good luck to them.
    Then you should be opposed to the whole concept of the monarchy.

    Jumping onboard the outrage bus because it happens to be the lefty-liberal Harry and Meghan just screams hypocrisy.

    The conservative royals like Andrew and co. who offer nothing, its fine for them to leach off the taxpayer though clearly.

    Unbelievable.
    I said nothing about any of that, you've literally made all of that up and then judged me on the basis of it.
    Of course I’ve judged you. You’re getting your knickers in a twist over an Instagram post.
    What are you banging on about?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Honestly, who cares?

    If they want to get taxpayer money the I do. If they don't, then good luck to them.
    Then you should be opposed to the whole concept of the monarchy.

    Jumping onboard the outrage bus because it happens to be the lefty-liberal Harry and Meghan just screams hypocrisy.

    The conservative royals like Andrew and co. who offer nothing, its fine for them to leach off the taxpayer though clearly.

    Unbelievable.
    I said nothing about any of that, you've literally made all of that up and then judged me on the basis of it.
    Of course I’ve judged you. You’re getting your knickers in a twist over an Instagram post.
    What are you banging on about?
    Harry and Meghan posted on Instagram that they wanted to move abroad and “get jobs” and you’re losing your mind over it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,992
    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    News bulletin began: government officials from the US, UK and Canada are all now suggesting....

    Was preparing for a Harry and Meghan update whereas the item was about Iran and the plane ffs.

    That is, in all seriousness, a very, very horrible story. It reflects extremely badly on Iran.

    The irony is that old fool Khamenei will now probably shoot several of his own generals for this cock up, which will damage the government further.

    The further irony is of course that whether it’s true or not people will believe it because it’s exactly the sort of stupid error the Iranians would make and then try to cover up (cf those Marines and their boats).
    Yes. I agree. I hear she's back in Canada already.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,729
    edited January 2020
    Foxy said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Dr. Foxy, your comment would have more merit if other royals (even the Queen, in the aftermath of Diana's death) hadn't also had a lot of rubbish poured on them by the media over the years.

    The fact that our toxic tabloids are hostile to others is not a great defence. We don't have to take their crap.
    You are quite right. You don't have to buy a tabloid but they have the right to publish. Its called democracy..
    Suck it up instead of whining about it.... or do you think you have the right to tell them what they can publish??..You would be far better off directing your attention to the anonymous filth that is being published on social media... there is a case for action there.
This discussion has been closed.