Looking into some of the numbers around Harry, it seem as though he wouldn't need to work. Invested correctly, they could live from the income generated by it as long as they don't have an overly extravagant lifestyle.
But their need for an overly extravagant lifestyle is exactly why they want to give up their current roles. It seems that at least one of them didn’t understand that the Royals being one of the richest families in the world doesn’t mean they have unlimited personal wealth to spend as they please.
Oh really? It has nothing to do with them wanting to bring up their child away from the vultures in the British media?
Must be personal greed. Got it.
Nothing says good parenting like leaving your child with a nanny in Canada whilst you jet over to London to set up your branded website.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
It's a bit silly to be polling on this, because they haven't yet made the big decision. I doubt many people - royalist or republican - will be opposed to their final decision. What the polling clearly shows is that people do not support their demands for being half-in and half-out.
Well it also seems a bit silly for people on social media and PB to condemn the Sussexes before the final decision has been made.
They're are, understandably in my opinion, being criticised for making unreasonable demands and for not talking to the boss first.
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
You found another opportunity to slide in the “most powerful PM since Blair” line again I see.
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
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.
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...
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
I don't care either. The point is the reaction of people who do care.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
I don't care either. The point is the reaction of people who do care.
Does it matter what they think? They are likely the same people who will jump on any cause they think “sticks it to” the liberal “woke” “elite”. As we’ve seen in abundance in this thread.
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?
You demean yourself with posts like this.
So Foxy thinks if Meghan wasn't "dusky" no one would be objecting?
The British establishment is adept at freezing out those who do not fit its cozy world. I suspect that they would have been more tolerant of her ethnicity if she had played the part of a simpering clothes horse.
I think you’re too intelligent to believe the tripe you’re writing this morning.
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
You found another opportunity to slide in the “most powerful PM since Blair” line again I see.
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
Evidence? Trump, Macron, Morrison, Modi, Bolsonaro, Merkel, Trudeau etc all seem happy to meet Boris and most tweeted their congratulations after he won, Boris of course is in a stronger position than most of them at home now and is not stained by the Iraq War as Blair was in his latter years
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
Provided they give up the gravy train.
Which they literally said they would in the second sentence of their statement which you obviously haven’t read.
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
You found another opportunity to slide in the “most powerful PM since Blair” line again I see.
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
Evidence? Trump, Macron, Morrison, Modi, Bolsonaro, Merkel, Trudeau etc all seem happy to meet Boris and most tweeted their congratulations after he won, Boris of course is in a stronger position than most of them at home now and is not stained by the Iraq War as Blair was in his latter years
They tweeted their congratulations? Oh well that changes everything.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
Andrew, and Fergie, are the irrelevant past.
Harry and Meghan are (or were) part of the hopeful future.
There's more than a good chance that it is not close to what the USS Vincennes had available to it in 1988. My guess is they thought the airliner was some sort of intercept bomber responding to the firing of rockets.
The Vincennes crew had all the information they needed to make the correct decision in the Aegis combat management system but ignored it. Sometimes people in super high stress situations see what they want to see. I know I have but I only (very, very nearly) killed myself not anyone else.
Looking into some of the numbers around Harry, it seem as though he wouldn't need to work. Invested correctly, they could live from the income generated by it as long as they don't have an overly extravagant lifestyle.
Sounds a good idea, 60% of Canadians and 62% of young Canadians and 47% of Quebecois back the move and Meghan is Canadian and Canada is a Commonwealth realm. The Canadian PM is also the left liberal woke Justin Trudeau in keeping with their world view
A good way out in Palace terms. Not sure being Mrs Governor General of Canada was quite the glamourous royal life Meghan had in mind, though......
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.
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...
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?
PB's equivalent of this lad care very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very much it would appear.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
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.
In short, no-one cares about Prince Andrew.
People care about Prince Harry.
Then this is not about the future of the monarchy or the royal family. It’s personal.
Both. Many people were invested in Harry as the future of the Royal Family. Human. Humanitarian (Invictus Games and so on). Even Meghan.
I cannot see how Andrew’s predatory, entitled sexual misconduct (to put it mildly) is less damaging to the standing of the royal family than Harry’s desire to look after his own family and earn a crust. I know which one I think damages the monarchy more - and which one harms the country’s reputation the most.
People already had a pretty low opinion of Andrew and he wasn’t at the centre of the royal family or its future, so he’s been cut loose with few ill effects.
Harry and Meghan by contrast had the potential to be huge strengtheners for the future of the institution going forwards, both in the UK and the Commonwealth.
Those dreams are turning to dust right now, which explains why people care more about them.
It's a bit silly to be polling on this, because they haven't yet made the big decision. I doubt many people - royalist or republican - will be opposed to their final decision. What the polling clearly shows is that people do not support their demands for being half-in and half-out.
Well it also seems a bit silly for people on social media and PB to condemn the Sussexes before the final decision has been made.
Good to see TSE speaking up for the monarchy. I'm going tomorrow in dread but having seen us let in 7 vs bayern already, I'm desensitised for the inevitable loss that is coming.
It's a bit silly to be polling on this, because they haven't yet made the big decision. I doubt many people - royalist or republican - will be opposed to their final decision. What the polling clearly shows is that people do not support their demands for being half-in and half-out.
Well it also seems a bit silly for people on social media and PB to condemn the Sussexes before the final decision has been made.
People here jump to conclusions on no or limited facts, fit the facts to their conclusions, pretend they have special knowledge, think they are better at modelling elections than professionals, think they are experts on everything and whine professionally.
Looking into some of the numbers around Harry, it seem as though he wouldn't need to work. Invested correctly, they could live from the income generated by it as long as they don't have an overly extravagant lifestyle.
Sounds a good idea, 60% of Canadians and 62% of young Canadians and 47% of Quebecois back the move and Meghan is Canadian and Canada is a Commonwealth realm. The Canadian PM is also the left liberal woke Justin Trudeau in keeping with their world view
A good way out in Palace terms. Not sure being Mrs Governor General of Canada was quite the glamourous royal life Meghan had in mind, though......
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
It's a bit silly to be polling on this, because they haven't yet made the big decision. I doubt many people - royalist or republican - will be opposed to their final decision. What the polling clearly shows is that people do not support their demands for being half-in and half-out.
Well it also seems a bit silly for people on social media and PB to condemn the Sussexes before the final decision has been made.
People here ...think they are better at modelling elections than professionals
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Looking into some of the numbers around Harry, it seem as though he wouldn't need to work. Invested correctly, they could live from the income generated by it as long as they don't have an overly extravagant lifestyle.
Sounds a good idea, 60% of Canadians and 62% of young Canadians and 47% of Quebecois back the move and Meghan is Canadian and Canada is a Commonwealth realm. The Canadian PM is also the left liberal woke Justin Trudeau in keeping with their world view
A good way out in Palace terms. Not sure being Mrs Governor General of Canada was quite the glamourous royal life Meghan had in mind, though......
I assume you don’t actually know Meghan and are basing your opinion on what the Sun and the Daily Mail report. Says it all really. It’s all rather unpleasant.
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
You found another opportunity to slide in the “most powerful PM since Blair” line again I see.
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
In defence of HYUFD, his point related to Johnson’s parliamentary majority, and in this respect is entirely correct. Thanks to a decade of slim to none majorities, we have become unaccustomed to the amount of untrammelled power a PM can wield domestically.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
All reasonable questions. We’ll have to wait and see.
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).
It is an easy mistake to make. That is how the USS Vincennes shot down a scheduled flight in 1988, killing 290 innocent people.
Because in 30 years there has been no progress with tracking technology?
There's a more than a good chance that Iran's tech is 30 years old.
There's more than a good chance that it is not close to what the USS Vincennes had available to it in 1988. My guess is they thought the airliner was some sort of intercept bomber responding to the firing of rockets.
Most likely. In which case, they would have had seconds to respond to a perceived incoming threat.
Of course, the prudent might have closed the airport whilst missiles were whizzing about.
According to what I read they did apparently; a couple of planes had taken off ahead of this one after flights were allowed to resume. Makes it seem even more of a cock-up.
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 ?
Boris losing a vote before 2024 would be really big news now.
Or before 2028.
Or (if he wants the job that long) 2032.
What's the longest uninterrupted reign as PM, btw?
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
You found another opportunity to slide in the “most powerful PM since Blair” line again I see.
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
In defence of HYUFD, his point related to Johnson’s parliamentary majority, and in this respect is entirely correct. Thanks to a decade of slim to none majorities, we have become unaccustomed to the amount of untrammelled power a PM can wield domestically.
No, his point was simply to gloat some more about the election result. Regardless we’ll see how “powerful” Boris Johnson really is when Brexit starts to turn to ash in his mouth and real decisions have to be made.
Looking into some of the numbers around Harry, it seem as though he wouldn't need to work. Invested correctly, they could live from the income generated by it as long as they don't have an overly extravagant lifestyle.
Sounds a good idea, 60% of Canadians and 62% of young Canadians and 47% of Quebecois back the move and Meghan is Canadian and Canada is a Commonwealth realm. The Canadian PM is also the left liberal woke Justin Trudeau in keeping with their world view
A good way out in Palace terms. Not sure being Mrs Governor General of Canada was quite the glamourous royal life Meghan had in mind, though......
I’d give that about 12 months.
Or the third time she has to dine with the wife of the Alberta Milk Marketing Board, whichever is the sooner......
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 ?
Boris losing a vote before 2024 would be really big news now.
Or before 2028.
Or (if he wants the job that long) 2032.
What's the longest uninterrupted reign as PM, btw?
Is there a law against public masturbation?
Why? Are you worried that picture of that “Yoon” you posted upthread is going to get you going?
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Also, what is involved in their plans to become self-sufficient?
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
You found another opportunity to slide in the “most powerful PM since Blair” line again I see.
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
In defence of HYUFD, his point related to Johnson’s parliamentary majority, and in this respect is entirely correct. Thanks to a decade of slim to none majorities, we have become unaccustomed to the amount of untrammelled power a PM can wield domestically.
No, his point was simply to gloat some more about the election result.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
Provided they give up the gravy train.
Which they literally said they would in the second sentence of their statement which you obviously haven’t read.
I think the problem with that is no one believes they will, for example they want to keep their grace and favour house, but commercial rent on that would be upwards of £7k PCM. They want a continued slice of Charlie's money which is classed as private income, but on which no income tax is paid etc...
If they give all of that up and just become Harry and Meghan Windsor, I don't think anyone would really give a fuck. The polling says it, broadly people either don't care or support their decision to go out on their own, but they also want them to really do it, not rely on the rest of the family for a grant or the taxpayer to subsidise their lifestyle.
I remain hopeful that they will follow through and give up all of the taxpayer subsidies, it would be the best thing for them to leave the whole circus behind.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
Provided they give up the gravy train.
Which they literally said they would in the second sentence of their statement which you obviously haven’t read.
I think the problem with that is no one believes they will, for example they want to keep their grace and favour house, but commercial rent on that would be upwards of £7k PCM. They want a continued slice of Charlie's money which is classed as private income, but on which no income tax is paid etc...
If they give all of that up and just become Harry and Meghan Windsor, I don't think anyone would really give a fuck. The polling says it, broadly people either don't care or support their decision to go out on their own, but they also want them to really do it, not rely on the rest of the family for a grant or the taxpayer to subsidise their lifestyle.
I remain hopeful that they will follow through and give up all of the taxpayer subsidies, it would be the best thing for them to leave the whole circus behind.
Which is fine. Let’s save the criticism until we know the details. The hard part might be protection. Even if they wanted to give it up I doubt the Government would deem that prudent.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Also, what is involved in their plans to become self-sufficient?
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
Is there a law - and I'm thinking about the USA here - that prohibits someone styling themselves as "His/Her Royal Highness"? If they lost their titles here, could they still refer to themselves as HRH or whatever?
Americans tend to be quite respectful or our titles - CBS always enjoy saying "Sir Nick Faldo" - but I wonder whether Harry and Meghan could just do what they like irrespective of what the Palace say.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
Provided they give up the gravy train.
Which they literally said they would in the second sentence of their statement which you obviously haven’t read.
I think the problem with that is no one believes they will, for example they want to keep their grace and favour house, but commercial rent on that would be upwards of £7k PCM. They want a continued slice of Charlie's money which is classed as private income, but on which no income tax is paid etc...
If they give all of that up and just become Harry and Meghan Windsor, I don't think anyone would really give a fuck. The polling says it, broadly people either don't care or support their decision to go out on their own, but they also want them to really do it, not rely on the rest of the family for a grant or the taxpayer to subsidise their lifestyle.
I remain hopeful that they will follow through and give up all of the taxpayer subsidies, it would be the best thing for them to leave the whole circus behind.
Which is fine. Let’s save the criticism until we know the details. The hard part might be protection. Even if they wanted to give it up I doubt the Government would deem that prudent.
Yes, I think security protection is fair, the last thing we want is for ISIS to kidnap Meghan and parade her on TV or something like that.
Trump's Iran speech appears to have launched a new conspiracy theory that he is off his tits on prescription adderall. Seems to me more likely he has a cold. There's a lot of it about. Older readers will think back to the days when adderall was part of the "smart drug" scare -- students popping pills to boost their exam results, so if the Trump grey cells do get a lift, it's win-win.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
Provided they give up the gravy train.
Which they literally said they would in the second sentence of their statement which you obviously haven’t read.
I read it and am content that they do what the public suggest. I remain unconvinced they will give up on the public money. It's very amusing to listen to the Liberals an Socialists on here defending the woke monarchy.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
And will Boris pass a law ending the transition on 31st December?
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 ?
Boris losing a vote before 2024 would be really big news now.
Or before 2028.
Or (if he wants the job that long) 2032.
What's the longest uninterrupted reign as PM, btw?
Is there a law against public masturbation?
Why? Are you worried that picture of that “Yoon” you posted upthread is going to get you going?
It just goes to show what different times we're in. Apparently there was some kind of vote yesterday. Who knew? No one from reading PB that's for sure.
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 ?
Boris losing a vote before 2024 would be really big news now.
Or before 2028.
Or (if he wants the job that long) 2032.
What's the longest uninterrupted reign as PM, btw?
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
You found another opportunity to slide in the “most powerful PM since Blair” line again I see.
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
In defence of HYUFD, his point related to Johnson’s parliamentary majority, and in this respect is entirely correct. Thanks to a decade of slim to none majorities, we have become unaccustomed to the amount of untrammelled power a PM can wield domestically.
No, his point was simply to gloat some more about the election result. Regardless we’ll see how “powerful” Boris Johnson really is when Brexit starts to turn to ash in his mouth and real decisions have to be made.
The real decision was to deliver the Brexit the voters voted for and he now has a majority to do
Looking into some of the numbers around Harry, it seem as though he wouldn't need to work. Invested correctly, they could live from the income generated by it as long as they don't have an overly extravagant lifestyle.
Sounds a good idea, 60% of Canadians and 62% of young Canadians and 47% of Quebecois back the move and Meghan is Canadian and Canada is a Commonwealth realm. The Canadian PM is also the left liberal woke Justin Trudeau in keeping with their world view
A good way out in Palace terms. Not sure being Mrs Governor General of Canada was quite the glamourous royal life Meghan had in mind, though......
Meghan lived in Toronto while filming suits and has returned to Canada now, am sure she could adjust
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Also, what is involved in their plans to become self-sufficient?
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
Is there a law - and I'm thinking about the USA here - that prohibits someone styling themselves as "His/Her Royal Highness"? If they lost their titles here, could they still refer to themselves as HRH or whatever?
Americans tend to be quite respectful or our titles - CBS always enjoy saying "Sir Nick Faldo" - but I wonder whether Harry and Meghan could just do what they like irrespective of what the Palace say.
I think freedom of speech would override any possible law, and there are plenty of entertainers in the US with some very silly stage names - but the US networks are unlikely to want to antagonise the royal family by using titles that have been officially rescinded (although they may have to retain a media lawyer in the US to continually point this out).
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Also, what is involved in their plans to become self-sufficient?
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
Is there a law - and I'm thinking about the USA here - that prohibits someone styling themselves as "His/Her Royal Highness"? If they lost their titles here, could they still refer to themselves as HRH or whatever?
Americans tend to be quite respectful or our titles - CBS always enjoy saying "Sir Nick Faldo" - but I wonder whether Harry and Meghan could just do what they like irrespective of what the Palace say.
I think freedom of speech would override any possible law, and there are plenty of entertainers in the US with some very silly stage names - but the US networks are unlikely to want to antagonise the royal family by using titles that have been officially rescinded (although they may have to retain a media lawyer in the US to continually point this out).
Are you telling me that The Kings of Leon are not actually kings of Leon?
Man with long track record of avoiding detailed scrutiny continues to do all he can to avoid detailed scrutiny shock!
What is this "scrutiny" of which you speak?
The MPs only need to turn up every couple of months, to rubber-stamp what Dominic Cummings has decided is best for the nation....
I certainly agree that the Tory PLP are a bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided.
As opposed to Tony Blair's bunch of useless drones, only useful as lobby fodder when a vote can no longer be avoided, when he had a majority of 179....
I agree, indeed that is one side to why I left the Labour Party in the early noughties.
Francis Pym was sacked in '83 for pointing out that Landslides rarely lead to successful governments.
Boris can hardly help being the most powerful PM since Blair now with a big majority, a few months ago Boris was impotent and backbench MPs all powerful due to the hung parliament
You found another opportunity to slide in the “most powerful PM since Blair” line again I see.
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
In defence of HYUFD, his point related to Johnson’s parliamentary majority, and in this respect is entirely correct. Thanks to a decade of slim to none majorities, we have become unaccustomed to the amount of untrammelled power a PM can wield domestically.
No, his point was simply to gloat some more about the election result. Regardless we’ll see how “powerful” Boris Johnson really is when Brexit starts to turn to ash in his mouth and real decisions have to be made.
The real decision was to deliver the Brexit the voters voted for and he now has a majority to do
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 ?
Boris losing a vote before 2024 would be really big news now.
Or before 2028.
Or (if he wants the job that long) 2032.
What's the longest uninterrupted reign as PM, btw?
Is there a law against public masturbation?
Why? Are you worried that picture of that “Yoon” you posted upthread is going to get you going?
Fish in a barrel.
Well, we all have our own peculiar sexual proclivities.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
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 ?
Boris losing a vote before 2024 would be really big news now.
Or before 2028.
Or (if he wants the job that long) 2032.
What's the longest uninterrupted reign as PM, btw?
Is there a law against public masturbation?
Apparently not, under the current PM.
It's when it becomes compulsory to a background of Big Ben bongs that I worry about.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Also, what is involved in their plans to become self-sufficient?
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
Is there a law - and I'm thinking about the USA here - that prohibits someone styling themselves as "His/Her Royal Highness"? If they lost their titles here, could they still refer to themselves as HRH or whatever?
Americans tend to be quite respectful or our titles - CBS always enjoy saying "Sir Nick Faldo" - but I wonder whether Harry and Meghan could just do what they like irrespective of what the Palace say.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Anyway, my last word on the Meghan/Harry thing: it is interesting - and disappointing - that afaics none of the Graun's articles on the matter have been opened for comments. Perhaps they feel that a torrent of (surely) negative comments might somehow be to the detriment of the paper?
McTague nails the source of the criticism of the Sussexes: /
). It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Also, what is involved in their plans to become self-sufficient?
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
Is there a law - and I'm thinking about the USA here - that prohibits someone styling themselves as "His/Her Royal Highness"? If they lost their titles here, could they still refer to themselves as HRH or whatever?
Americans tend to be quite respectful or our titles - CBS always enjoy saying "Sir Nick Faldo" - but I wonder whether Harry and Meghan could just do what they like irrespective of what the Palace say.
I think freedom of speech would override any possible law, and there are plenty of entertainers in the US with some very silly stage names - but the US networks are unlikely to want to antagonise the royal family by using titles that have been officially rescinded (although they may have to retain a media lawyer in the US to continually point this out).
Are you telling me that The Kings of Leon are not actually kings of Leon?
McTague nails the source of the criticism of the Sussexes: /
). It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Also, what is involved in their plans to become self-sufficient?
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
Is there a law - and I'm thinking about the USA here - that prohibits someone styling themselves as "His/Her Royal Highness"? If they lost their titles here, could they still refer to themselves as HRH or whatever?
Americans tend to be quite respectful or our titles - CBS always enjoy saying "Sir Nick Faldo" - but I wonder whether Harry and Meghan could just do what they like irrespective of what the Palace say.
I think freedom of speech would override any possible law, and there are plenty of entertainers in the US with some very silly stage names - but the US networks are unlikely to want to antagonise the royal family by using titles that have been officially rescinded (although they may have to retain a media lawyer in the US to continually point this out).
Are you telling me that The Kings of Leon are not actually kings of Leon?
And DJ “Charlemagne Tha God” isn’t actually God.
and deadmau5 is actually a skinny bloke from Ontario and not a recently deceased rodent.
It just goes to show what different times we're in. Apparently there was some kind of vote yesterday. Who knew? No one from reading PB that's for sure.
Interesting but unconvincing. The Sussexes do seem to want it both ways but is that hypocrisy? In any case, that is not the real problem which is that people really did care about Harry in the same way they cared about Diana -- both were seen as the new face of the Royal Family, engaging with the public and with serious issues; not aloof and not in it for the perks like Air Miles Andy (even before the Epstein news).
It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
You keep talking about “betrayal” and what not but there’s no evidence the public give a damn. As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
Provided they give up the gravy train.
Which they literally said they would in the second sentence of their statement which you obviously haven’t read.
I think the problem with that is no one believes they will, for example they want to keep their grace and favour house, but commercial rent on that would be upwards of £7k PCM. They want a continued slice of Charlie's money which is classed as private income, but on which no income tax is paid etc...
If they give all of that up and just become Harry and Meghan Windsor, I don't think anyone would really give a fuck. The polling says it, broadly people either don't care or support their decision to go out on their own, but they also want them to really do it, not rely on the rest of the family for a grant or the taxpayer to subsidise their lifestyle.
I remain hopeful that they will follow through and give up all of the taxpayer subsidies, it would be the best thing for them to leave the whole circus behind.
Or even better just tax all the royals normally, the state provides their security protection and pays them generously but realistically for whatever work that they do.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.
Anyway, my last word on the Meghan/Harry thing: it is interesting - and disappointing - that afaics none of the Graun's articles on the matter have been opened for comments. Perhaps they feel that a torrent of (surely) negative comments might somehow be to the detriment of the paper?
Telegraph had had no comments allowed under H&M articles for a while now. I guess they don’t want piles of negative posts or to be inundated with supportive paid shills.
It just goes to show what different times we're in. Apparently there was some kind of vote yesterday. Who knew? No one from reading PB that's for sure.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.</p>
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I’m not disputing that Brexit *will* happen. Nor am I questioning his right to do it. However to make wide proclamations about the “will of the people” when the evidence states the opposite is just dishonesty.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
The problem was that none (Bar the Brexit party) of the others were offering any form of Brexit at all. Labour's plan would have been superior without the whole 'Subject to a confirmatory referendum' with the icing on the cake for leavers to oppose it of having precisely 0 MPs prepared publicly to back their own deal.
In 2017, effectively Labour said they'd get Brexit done - without the chance of it being scuppered by remainers. So the issue was neutralised.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.</p>
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I’m not disputing that Brexit *will* happen. Nor am I questioning his right to do it. However to make wide proclamations about the “will of the people” when the evidence states the opposite is just dishonesty.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
I think it's fine for the winner of an election to be deemed to have the approval, and to be implementing the will of "the people". It's just shorthand for what we have been discussing.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.</p>
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I’m not disputing that Brexit *will* happen. Nor am I questioning his right to do it. However to make wide proclamations about the “will of the people” when the evidence states the opposite is just dishonesty.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
I think it's fine for the winner of an election to be deemed to have the approval, and to be implementing the will of "the people". It's just shorthand for what we have been discussing.
I respectfully disagree, which is why I have such a problem with FPTP. I said the same during the New Labour years and I say the same now.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.</p>
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I’m not disputing that Brexit *will* happen. Nor am I questioning his right to do it. However to make wide proclamations about the “will of the people” when the evidence states the opposite is just dishonesty.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
I think it's fine for the winner of an election to be deemed to have the approval, and to be implementing the will of "the people". It's just shorthand for what we have been discussing.
I respectfully disagree, which is why I have such a problem with FPTP. I said the same during the New Labour years and I say the same now.
You were questioning the validity of Tony Blair's mandate from the moment he won in 1997?
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.</p>
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I’m not disputing that Brexit *will* happen. Nor am I questioning his right to do it. However to make wide proclamations about the “will of the people” when the evidence states the opposite is just dishonesty.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
I think it's fine for the winner of an election to be deemed to have the approval, and to be implementing the will of "the people". It's just shorthand for what we have been discussing.
I respectfully disagree, which is why I have such a problem with FPTP. I said the same during the New Labour years and I say the same now.
You were questioning the validity of Tony Blair's mandate from the moment he won in 1997?
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.</p>
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I’m not disputing that Brexit *will* happen. Nor am I questioning his right to do it. However to make wide proclamations about the “will of the people” when the evidence states the opposite is just dishonesty.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
I think it's fine for the winner of an election to be deemed to have the approval, and to be implementing the will of "the people". It's just shorthand for what we have been discussing.
I respectfully disagree, which is why I have such a problem with FPTP. I said the same during the New Labour years and I say the same now.
I note that New Labour did nothing about FPTP for thirteen years of the New Labour years. Despite the will of the people giving them massive majorities, where they could easily have moved to PR.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.</p>
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I’m not disputing that Brexit *will* happen. Nor am I questioning his right to do it. However to make wide proclamations about the “will of the people” when the evidence states the opposite is just dishonesty.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
I think it's fine for the winner of an election to be deemed to have the approval, and to be implementing the will of "the people". It's just shorthand for what we have been discussing.
I respectfully disagree, which is why I have such a problem with FPTP. I said the same during the New Labour years and I say the same now.
I note that New Labour did nothing about FPTP for thirteen years of the New Labour years. Despite the will of the people giving them massive majorities, where they could easily have moved to PR.
Funny that.
You don’t have to tell me that. It is a source of much frustration. John Prescott has a lot to answer for.
It's not nonsense. It was a powerful message which cut through and had great validity. The nation voted in 2016 to leave the EU and was impatient with the time it was taking to deliver on that vote. Boris said he would and the country said right you are.
No it didn’t. 44% of the country said “right you are”. Over 50% of the country said “hang on a minute”.
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
Not the old "only XX (<50%) of the people voted, therefore it isn't..."
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.</p>
I’m not picking and choosing anything. I’m not disputing that Brexit *will* happen. Nor am I questioning his right to do it. However to make wide proclamations about the “will of the people” when the evidence states the opposite is just dishonesty.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
I think it's fine for the winner of an election to be deemed to have the approval, and to be implementing the will of "the people". It's just shorthand for what we have been discussing.
I respectfully disagree, which is why I have such a problem with FPTP. I said the same during the New Labour years and I say the same now.
Fair enough.
Edit: 5 yrs old in 1997? You young whippersnapper you.
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
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 ?
Boris losing a vote before 2024 would be really big news now.
Or before 2028.
Or (if he wants the job that long) 2032.
What's the longest uninterrupted reign as PM, btw?
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.
Mr. Eagles, there's a split there between opinion on funding and the decision.
How they try and square the funding circle will determine public perceptions going forward, it seems.
Exactly. I don’t think anyone sensible should have a problem with them living a private life, doing charitable stuff and/or earning a living (the Duke of Gloucester, for instance, worked as an architect), provided:-
1. They don’t also expect the public funding and privileges of being a royal (eg being gifted luxurious houses done up at public expense); 2. They don’t exploit their links with our Head of State In an unseemly manner to benefit themselves financially. Sussex biscuits are one thing. Selling access to Royals a la Fergie is not. 3. They take sensible advice about who they associate with - unlike, say, Andrew. 4. They understand that if they take public stances on matters of public interest, like anyone else doing so, they should expect comment and criticism. Just as Prince Charles has faced or anyone else in public life.
They should also display a bit more consideration for and politeness to HMQ. Issuing a statement mentioning her without informing her is very impolite and is deservedly criticised. Politeness costs nothing.
Their statement is a bit ambiguous on point 1. Half in / half out is not on.
It is not clear how they will address point 2.
They would be very well advised to take point 3 on board.
On 4 they seem to want to be able to speak but then claim harassment if people point out the obvious hypocrisy of, say, lecturing about climate change while flying in private jets.
And no - it is not just them. Charles rightly faced exactly the same criticism when years ago he visited Romania and had one of his Rolls Royces driven out there just so that he could loll around in it for a bit. So they need to be a bit more grown up about that. Meghan is American. She should understand the importance of a free press.
Watching celebrities using the press for their own purposes and then moaning when their PR campaigns don’t go to plan is one of the more nauseating spectacles of our time.
All these issues should now be addressed by them and the Palace quietly and quickly, a clear joint statement made and they get on with it. In the meanwhile leave them alone.
Personally I also think titles should not be bestowed on minor royals but only on those in the direct line of succession. The example of Princess Anne and her children should have been followed. All grandchildren etc should be commoners. Only the heirs should get a title.
McTague nails the source of the criticism of the Sussexes: /
). It's the sense of betrayal not hypocrisy.
As the polling in this thread shows, most people either don’t care or support their decision.
They don't support the cake-ism in the Sussexes plans.....and if the costs of tax payer funded close protection for them were made public I suspect they'd support them even less....
They say they are transitioning to financial independence. What more do you want? Anything else is speculation.
How long does the "transition" last for? What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money? Etc Etc.
Also, what is involved in their plans to become self-sufficient?
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
Is there a law - and I'm thinking about the USA here - that prohibits someone styling themselves as "His/Her Royal Highness"? If they lost their titles here, could they still refer to themselves as HRH or whatever?
Americans tend to be quite respectful or our titles - CBS always enjoy saying "Sir Nick Faldo" - but I wonder whether Harry and Meghan could just do what they like irrespective of what the Palace say.
I think freedom of speech would override any possible law, and there are plenty of entertainers in the US with some very silly stage names - but the US networks are unlikely to want to antagonise the royal family by using titles that have been officially rescinded (although they may have to retain a media lawyer in the US to continually point this out).
Are you telling me that The Kings of Leon are not actually kings of Leon?
And DJ “Charlemagne Tha God” isn’t actually God.
and deadmau5 is actually a skinny bloke from Ontario and not a recently deceased rodent.
Well yes, but when he takes the head off there is little difference...
Comments
Of course its nonsense because unlike Blair who world leaders were queuing up to meet, Boris Johnson is having to go on his hands and knees begging.
I don’t think personal is quite the right word. Very few know these people personally.
Keep trying to test my “wokeness” though if it makes you feel superior.
Harry and Meghan are (or were) part of the hopeful future.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1215208478215720960?s=20
Why should this be different?
What duties will they perform whilst they are still in receipt of public money?
Etc Etc.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7869529/Meghan-Harry-refuse-mystery-multi-millionaire-owns-Christmas-mansion.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
Regardless we’ll see how “powerful” Boris Johnson really is when Brexit starts to turn to ash in his mouth and real decisions have to be made.
From what they themselves have said and done so far, it doesn’t sound like they’re going to get what anyone would describe as a job - rather they wish to use their royal status commercially, in a way that the rest of the family would say is detrimental to the brand and reputation of the royal family.
If they give all of that up and just become Harry and Meghan Windsor, I don't think anyone would really give a fuck. The polling says it, broadly people either don't care or support their decision to go out on their own, but they also want them to really do it, not rely on the rest of the family for a grant or the taxpayer to subsidise their lifestyle.
I remain hopeful that they will follow through and give up all of the taxpayer subsidies, it would be the best thing for them to leave the whole circus behind.
The hard part might be protection. Even if they wanted to give it up I doubt the Government would deem that prudent.
Americans tend to be quite respectful or our titles - CBS always enjoy saying "Sir Nick Faldo" - but I wonder whether Harry and Meghan could just do what they like irrespective of what the Palace say.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1215376175402569728
Or he could use a squiggle.....
Regardless, my dispute is not with Brexit but the form of Brexit. Boris Johnson and therefore his diciple @HYUFD claim to be delivering the “one true Brexit”, but we still have no idea what form that will take because its highly dependent on what others are willing to offer us.
To claim otherwise is just dishonesty.
We have no idea if people are going to be happy with what emerges from the other side of this quagmire.
That's the way our parliamentary democracy works. You can't pick and choose when you like it working like that and when you don't like it working like that.
And as for flavour of Brexit we shall see. If the voters don't like it they can vote in RLB at the next available opportunity.
On the flavour of Brexit you are right. That’s the point I’m trying to make. It’s all very well for Boris Johnson at the moment but when he starts actually having to make real decisions that actually effect peoples lives, things will change.
When Brexit stops being an abstract all things to all people, the whole playing field changes. That’s why Keir Starmer’s involvement in “delaying Brexit” could become a complete irrelevance.
In 2017, effectively Labour said they'd get Brexit done - without the chance of it being scuppered by remainers. So the issue was neutralised.
I said the same during the New Labour years and I say the same now.
Funny that.
John Prescott has a lot to answer for.
Edit: 5 yrs old in 1997? You young whippersnapper you.
1. They don’t also expect the public funding and privileges of being a royal (eg being gifted luxurious houses done up at public expense);
2. They don’t exploit their links with our Head of State In an unseemly manner to benefit themselves financially. Sussex biscuits are one thing. Selling access to Royals a la Fergie is not.
3. They take sensible advice about who they associate with - unlike, say, Andrew.
4. They understand that if they take public stances on matters of public interest, like anyone else doing so, they should expect comment and criticism. Just as Prince Charles has faced or anyone else in public life.
They should also display a bit more consideration for and politeness to HMQ. Issuing a statement mentioning her without informing her is very impolite and is deservedly criticised. Politeness costs nothing.
Their statement is a bit ambiguous on point 1. Half in / half out is not on.
It is not clear how they will address point 2.
They would be very well advised to take point 3 on board.
On 4 they seem to want to be able to speak but then claim harassment if people point out the obvious hypocrisy of, say, lecturing about climate change while flying in private jets.
And no - it is not just them. Charles rightly faced exactly the same criticism when years ago he visited Romania and had one of his Rolls Royces driven out there just so that he could loll around in it for a bit. So they need to be a bit more grown up about that. Meghan is American. She should understand the importance of a free press.
Watching celebrities using the press for their own purposes and then moaning when their PR campaigns don’t go to plan is one of the more nauseating spectacles of our time.
All these issues should now be addressed by them and the Palace quietly and quickly, a clear joint statement made and they get on with it. In the meanwhile leave them alone.
Personally I also think titles should not be bestowed on minor royals but only on those in the direct line of succession. The example of Princess Anne and her children should have been followed. All grandchildren etc should be commoners. Only the heirs should get a title.