Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We have stable democratic government in this country. Change passes peacefully. Stable, reliable and accountable institutions are the holy grail of prosperity. Our constitutional settlement give us this.
There are many countries out there that cope remarkably well without a constitutional monarch. A stable long term settlement is not something you want to rip up without consideration of what replaces it.
I could imagine something maybe along the Irish system of an elected president who plays a similar role to that of the monarch under our system, but plays no executive role in the functioning of the Government.
I do like that in our system loyalty is not sworn to the holder of office of the prime minister but to HMQ and her successors. This is not just a quaint tradition. Any PM who thinks that when it comes down to it, that a member of the armed forces from squaddie to chief of defence staff would side with them over the Sovereign, if such a situation arose, will be sorely disappointed.
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
This sounds worrying, the case of the 27-day asymptomatic incubation period.
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We're stocked up for three months worth of closures of shops etc.
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
The biggest problem for the monarchy is to retain some degree of popularity whilst by the laws of biology and improved medicine most new monarchs will be well beyond the age of normal retirement.
We think of Henry VIII as well as extremely unpleasant as also being moderately old - in fact he was 56 when he died. Elizabeth I is portrayed in school history as outliving her contemporaries and dying in old age, she was actually 70. Edward VII is seen as a very old man when he became King. He was 69 when he died.
Prince Charles is 71 now, and counting. The logical thing would be for Charles to take the throne and make it clear he would stay as King for about one year but not have a coronation. After the year Charles could abdicate - gives the nation time to mourn Elizabeth II and then William could become King and be crowned about three months later. We would then have a monarch of the age to do all the stuff monarchs have to do. Charles and Camilla could do the Queen Mother role jointly - something to which they are probably well suited.
I agree, the continental monarchies that abdicate for retirement do seem to have the right idea, though because of her memories of the 1936 abdication crisis I can see why the current queen is not keen.
A compromise would be to remain as monarch in name but to designate a Prince (or Princess) Regent who carries out all duties.
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We're stocked up for three months worth of closures of shops etc.
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
Perhaps the PM has been leading by example, avoiding public events for a week...
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We're stocked up for three months worth of closures of shops etc.
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
Those no deal panic buyers will have the last laugh!!!
Elizabeth I is portrayed in school history as outliving her contemporaries and dying in old age, she was actually 70. Edward VII is seen as a very old man when he became King. He was 69 when he died.
*Pedant hat ON*
Elizabeth I was 69 when she died.
*Pedant hat OFF, then back ON*
Henry VIII was not 56, he was 55, and that *was* old in that timeframe. Henry VII was 52 when he died. He was the first King of England since Edward III in 1362 to live to see 50. After the Norman Conquest, not one English monarch* lived to see 70 until George II. Elizabeth II is in fact the only one to have made it past 81.
The Union could easily become subject to a pincer movement from both sides and end up with a referendum on its future. This must be avoided at all costs. Whilst ‘No’ would be very likely to win, its bedrock of support does represent a turbocharged Conservative vote. A referendum would establish a fissure in British life that would be unlikely to be healed ever again. A victory on 55% of the votes simply isn’t good enough for an institution that’s meant to unite the country.
PB 2020:
See header.
Broadly, I agree. A narrow victory wasn't enough - another narrow victory won't be enough either.
An excellent header from Casino Royale, good to see after some of the Brexit debates and bitter conflicts on here.
I would add that, rather than simply being conservative, part of the Queen's success has been a dutiful cultural conservatism mixed with a keen ear for both popular concerns and social consensus - it's not for nothing that Margaret Thatcher angrily complained that she was "the sort of woman would probably vote SDP".
The crisis of democratic representation is indeed linked to both white nationalist and leftwing identity politics, and this post, paradoxically but well for a post about a hereditary institution, hints at that well.
This post reminds me of 'The Crisis of Democracy' by Jōji Watanuki, Michel Crozier, and Samuel P. Huntington. I would love to read a more detailed report on the sustainability of the institute of the British monarchy. Or perhaps this kind of research has already been undertaken and the findings are highly classified )
Whatever the hypothetical polling currently shows, I suspect Sanders is going to get crushed by Trump.
But I may be wrong.
I thought the Primary Process would do what it usually does, and winnow the field. By now, I thought at least a couple of the moderates would have left the race. But that hasn't happened. Although the chance of Klobuchar winning is virtually zero, she's still in the race. For the former front runner to flop so hard he was fifth in New Hampshire should probably have resulted in his exit.
Almost every result seems to have been designed to give hope to one or other second tier candidate. New Hampshire gave hope to Klobuchar. Nevada to Biden.
But in keeping everyone in the game, there has been only one winner: Bernie Sanders.
And who created this circumstance? Michael Bloomberg.
He did this in two ways. He prevented anyone from gaining momentum, as he was the news story. And he became the bogeyman: vote Sanders to stop another billionaire winning the Democratic Primary. An old billionaire's vanity will give us Sanders vs Trump. And it will probably lead to a crushing Trump victory - because while Sanders may be polling well in hypotheticals, all the evidence is that his actual policies are deeply unpopular with middle America.
Whatever the hypothetical polling currently shows, I suspect Sanders is going to get crushed by Trump.
But I may be wrong.
I thought the Primary Process would do what it usually does, and winnow the field. By now, I thought at least a couple of the moderates would have left the race. But that hasn't happened. Although the chance of Klobuchar winning is virtually zero, she's still in the race. For the former front runner to flop so hard he was fifth in New Hampshire should probably have resulted in his exit.
Almost every result seems to have been designed to give hope to one or other second tier candidate. New Hampshire gave hope to Klobuchar. Nevada to Biden.
But in keeping everyone in the game, there has been only one winner: Bernie Sanders.
And who created this circumstance? Michael Bloomberg.
He did this in two ways. He prevented anyone from gaining momentum, as he was the news story. And he became the bogeyman: vote Sanders to stop another billionaire winning the Democratic Primary. An old billionaire's vanity will give us Sanders vs Trump. And it will probably lead to a crushing Trump victory - because while Sanders may be polling well in hypotheticals, all the evidence is that his actual policies are deeply unpopular with middle America.
We are closing everything here in Italy because of the coronavirus
10 municipalites are locked down with police now controlling exit routes.
Cinema and theaters are ordered to close in Lombardy region. Pubs should close after 6pm
Schools and universities are closed in Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli, Piemonte and Trentino since tomorrow.
Masses have been canceled in all churches located in Lombardy starting from this evening. The same order have just been given by the bishop of Venice. The Milan cathedral is going to be closed tomorrow
It doesn't say he will either, as president isn't based on popular vote.
I can easily see Sanders regaining two of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and losing all of Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico in exchange. I can also see him piling up massive majorities in New England and California which distorts his actual levels of nationwide support - as Clinton did, but more so.
What the Democrats need is somebody who can take all of them and mount a strong challenge in places like North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Arizona that are Republican but very dubious about Trump.
Sanders simply isn’t that person. Can anyone imagine him winning Florida?
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
We are closing everything here in Italy because of the coronavirus
10 municipalites are locked down with police now controlling exit routes.
Cinema and theaters are ordered to close in Lombardy region. Pubs should close after 6pm
Schools and universities are closed in Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli, Piemonte and Trentino since tomorrow.
Masses have been canceled in all churches located in Lombardy starting from this evening. The same order have just been given by the bishop of Venice. The Milan cathedral is going to be closed tomorrow
Did they ask SeanT Eadric to look after the quarantine arrnagments?
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
Is the ‘we’ your family or California as a whole?
Our family.
Why? Because you’re immigrants? Or because the US will descend into chaos?
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We're stocked up for three months worth of closures of shops etc.
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
The news out of Korea is interesting, as they are testing everyone with any symptoms, or risk factors, and they are testing thousands. And they are very honest and transparent
Their figures show a mortality ratio of ~1%. Nowhere near as bad as the 2-3% in Hubei
So there's some good news but 1% is still ten times the death rate of normal flu, so this IS a nasty disease.
The questions now are Can it be contained, and how many will it Infect, before it fizzles out, mutates to something benign, or is "cured".
Containment looks unrealistic (tho we can slow it). That leaves us coping with a very nasty flu, with a notable but not calamitous death rate, which spreads like a cold, but is even more virulent.
It's not the end of the world. It is a major challenge.
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
Is the ‘we’ your family or California as a whole?
Our family.
Why? Because you’re immigrants? Or because the US will descend into chaos?
Because the US will become a less pleasant place to live.
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
Due to moral objection or immigration restrictions?
Whatever the hypothetical polling currently shows, I suspect Sanders is going to get crushed by Trump.
But I may be wrong.
I thought the Primary Process would do what it usually does, and winnow the field. By now, I thought at least a couple of the moderates would have left the race. But that hasn't happened. Although the chance of Klobuchar winning is virtually zero, she's still in the race. For the former front runner to flop so hard he was fifth in New Hampshire should probably have resulted in his exit.
Almost every result seems to have been designed to give hope to one or other second tier candidate. New Hampshire gave hope to Klobuchar. Nevada to Biden.
But in keeping everyone in the game, there has been only one winner: Bernie Sanders.
And who created this circumstance? Michael Bloomberg.
He did this in two ways. He prevented anyone from gaining momentum, as he was the news story. And he became the bogeyman: vote Sanders to stop another billionaire winning the Democratic Primary. An old billionaire's vanity will give us Sanders vs Trump. And it will probably lead to a crushing Trump victory - because while Sanders may be polling well in hypotheticals, all the evidence is that his actual policies are deeply unpopular with middle America.
Aside from there being two old vain billionaires sharing the responsibility, I agree with all of that. And there is a third element: their media purchases have made it almost impossible for another candidate other than the already well funded Sanders to create a virtuous surge/fundraising/media-buy circle.
We are closing everything here in Italy because of the coronavirus
10 municipalites are locked down with police now controlling exit routes.
Cinema and theaters are ordered to close in Lombardy region. Pubs should close after 6pm
Schools and universities are closed in Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli, Piemonte and Trentino since tomorrow.
Masses have been canceled in all churches located in Lombardy starting from this evening. The same order have just been given by the bishop of Venice. The Milan cathedral is going to be closed tomorrow
Sympathies. Lockdown is evidently quite distressing, judging by China.
Experts say it could last "weeks": that's a lot of pressure on people, some of whom will already be depressed, lonely, mentally unwell etc
May the Roman Gods help you!
They may be gods to you but they are no Zeus in this situation.
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We're stocked up for three months worth of closures of shops etc.
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
The news out of Korea is interesting, as they are testing everyone with any symptoms, or risk factors, and they are testing thousands. And they are very honest and transparent
Their figures show a mortality ratio of ~1%. Nowhere near as bad as the 2-3% in Hubei
So there's some good news but 1% is still ten times the death rate of normal flu, so this IS a nasty disease.
The pattern of disease is that it takes 7-10 days after symptoms to appear to reach the critical stage. It is a bit early to say what the ROK mortality will be.
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We're stocked up for three months worth of closures of shops etc.
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
The news out of Korea is interesting, as they are testing everyone with any symptoms, or risk factors, and they are testing thousands. And they are very honest and transparent
Their figures show a mortality ratio of ~1%. Nowhere near as bad as the 2-3% in Hubei
So there's some good news but 1% is still ten times the death rate of normal flu, so this IS a nasty disease.
The pattern of disease is that it takes 7-10 days after symptoms to appear to reach the critical stage. It is a bit early to say what the ROK mortality will be.
I wonder whether it has spread to the PDRK - and if so, what effect it could have on the mostly elderly and grossly unfit leadership.
We are closing everything here in Italy because of the coronavirus
10 municipalites are locked down with police now controlling exit routes.
Cinema and theaters are ordered to close in Lombardy region. Pubs should close after 6pm
Schools and universities are closed in Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli, Piemonte and Trentino since tomorrow.
Masses have been canceled in all churches located in Lombardy starting from this evening. The same order have just been given by the bishop of Venice. The Milan cathedral is going to be closed tomorrow
Did they ask SeanT Eadric to look after the quarantine arrnagments?
Seems a bit odd to be cancelling Mass just when it's needed more than ever.
We are closing everything here in Italy because of the coronavirus
10 municipalites are locked down with police now controlling exit routes.
Cinema and theaters are ordered to close in Lombardy region. Pubs should close after 6pm
Schools and universities are closed in Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli, Piemonte and Trentino since tomorrow.
Masses have been canceled in all churches located in Lombardy starting from this evening. The same order have just been given by the bishop of Venice. The Milan cathedral is going to be closed tomorrow
Sympathies. Lockdown is evidently quite distressing, judging by China.
Experts say it could last "weeks": that's a lot of pressure on people, some of whom will already be depressed, lonely, mentally unwell etc
May the Roman Gods help you!
They may be gods to you but they are no Zeus in this situation.
We are closing everything here in Italy because of the coronavirus
10 municipalites are locked down with police now controlling exit routes.
Cinema and theaters are ordered to close in Lombardy region. Pubs should close after 6pm
Schools and universities are closed in Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli, Piemonte and Trentino since tomorrow.
Masses have been canceled in all churches located in Lombardy starting from this evening. The same order have just been given by the bishop of Venice. The Milan cathedral is going to be closed tomorrow
I am due to go to a wedding in Lombardy in September. The bride's 100-year-old grandmother is determined to hang to life on until the wedding. Fingers crossed.
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
Similar personal impact for me albeit less drastic. We've been planning a big US roadtrip for ages but we can't do it (for obvious reasons) until he's gone.
Still, I am as we speak confident the path will be clear.
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We're stocked up for three months worth of closures of shops etc.
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
The news out of Korea is interesting, as they are testing everyone with any symptoms, or risk factors, and they are testing thousands. And they are very honest and transparent
Their figures show a mortality ratio of ~1%. Nowhere near as bad as the 2-3% in Hubei
So there's some good news but 1% is still ten times the death rate of normal flu, so this IS a nasty disease.
The pattern of disease is that it takes 7-10 days after symptoms to appear to reach the critical stage. It is a bit early to say what the ROK mortality will be.
I wonder whether it has spread to the PDRK - and if so, what effect it could have on the mostly elderly and grossly unfit leadership.
Pretty certain. Lots of North Koreans work in China to earn Forex for the government.
No, we shouldn’t. The degree of social control, information on citizens, and perhaps most importantly, the resources available in comparison to the size of the population (and land area) mean that following their example would be virtually impossible.
It’s about as sensible as using Singapore for a post Brexit model.
So the cruise ship passengers were allowed to fly back to the UK before the results of their tests were available. The rest of the passengers on the flight would appear to be less than impressed by this news.
All this talk of containment and avoidance of infection reminds me of the setting of Boccaccio's Decameron. If only we had among all the posters on this board a talented writer with a wealth of bawdy tales.....
Given the all clear in Japan. And of course nobody has ever picked up a virus on a long haul flight.
There are many aspects to this virus that make control difficult. It is infectious before symptoms appear, has a high transmission rate, and people often test negative, sometimes several times before becoming positive.
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
We're stocked up for three months worth of closures of shops etc.
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
The news out of Korea is interesting, as they are testing everyone with any symptoms, or risk factors, and they are testing thousands. And they are very honest and transparent
Their figures show a mortality ratio of ~1%. Nowhere near as bad as the 2-3% in Hubei
So there's some good news but 1% is still ten times the death rate of normal flu, so this IS a nasty disease.
The questions now are Can it be contained, and how many will it Infect, before it fizzles out, mutates to something benign, or is "cured".
Containment looks unrealistic (tho we can slow it). That leaves us coping with a very nasty flu, with a notable but not calamitous death rate, which spreads like a cold, but is even more virulent.
It's not the end of the world. It is a major challenge.
I’ve been telling you that for weeks.
But I don't want an argument tonight, not on this or anything.
Then why come on a political forum where multiple viewpoints are represented?
If we abolish the monarchy I don't see why we need anything to replace it, since the monarchy is not a check on the PM in the first place anyway.
Just formally transfer powers that the monarch previously held to the PM and get on with it.
I thought the Queen could dismiss Boris if she wanted to...
The last time a monarch de facto dismissed a PM in a Westminster system was in 1975. To say the least, the results for the monarch de facto concerned were suboptimal.
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
Very lawyerly though. Right to silence etc.
A better answer would be ‘I don’t know, and I wouldn’t know until I was in that situation.’ That would be a very smart answer, both truthful and admitting an element of human weakness.
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
RLB’s answer will finish her though. If he answered before her, maybe he thought she would say ‘no?’
As to your RLB prediction, I hope you are right.
She is important only because she has become by default the Corbynite standard bearer. But no Corbynite is going to be happy about that answer on nuclear weapons. If they ditch her, what other qualities does she have going for her?
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
On the contrary, Starmer has clearly thought about it. Good for him.
No he hasn't. His answer was not that of someone who is a leader
The honest answer is yes or no
I get a little weary of this 'yes' or 'no' fascism. Life is rarely, in fact never, that simple. Kantian epistemology is one good reason, but it's less highbrow than that. Between the simplistics of 'yes' and 'no' lie many nuances of meaning. We shouldn't succumb to the binary tyranny.
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
He has to win the nomination. If he wins and is still taking rubbish then Boris is home and dry again.
To be honest that one non answer has made him a hostage to fortune and a gift to Boris.
It was an unnnecessary misstep
Nope. You’re just sucked into Boris’ slogans and cartoonish view of the world. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No? It’s a simple question. Answer it.
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
On the contrary, Starmer has clearly thought about it. Good for him.
No he hasn't. His answer was not that of someone who is a leader
The honest answer is yes or no
I get a little weary of this 'yes' or 'no' fascism. Life is rarely, in fact never, that simple. Kantian epistemology is one good reason, but it's less highbrow than that. Between the simplistics of 'yes' and 'no' lie many nuances of meaning. We shouldn't succumb to the binary tyranny.
An excellent header from Casino Royale, good to see after some of the Brexit debates and bitter conflicts on here.
I would add that, rather than simply being conservative, part of the Queen's success has been a dutiful cultural conservatism mixed with a keen ear for both popular concerns and social consensus - it's not for nothing that Margaret Thatcher angrily complained that she was "the sort of woman would probably vote SDP".
Very good observation.
I'd say she's a classic example of a small-c conservative: change in order to conserve.
I'd far rather Thatcher said that about her than she was "one of us".
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
Is the ‘we’ your family or California as a whole?
Our family.
Why? Because you’re immigrants? Or because the US will descend into chaos?
Because the US will become a less pleasant place to live.
The Union could easily become subject to a pincer movement from both sides and end up with a referendum on its future. This must be avoided at all costs. Whilst ‘No’ would be very likely to win, its bedrock of support does represent a turbocharged Conservative vote. A referendum would establish a fissure in British life that would be unlikely to be healed ever again. A victory on 55% of the votes simply isn’t good enough for an institution that’s meant to unite the country.
PB 2020:
See header.
Broadly, I agree. A narrow victory wasn't enough - another narrow victory won't be enough either.
An excellent header from Casino Royale, good to see after some of the Brexit debates and bitter conflicts on here.
I would add that, rather than simply being conservative, part of the Queen's success has been a dutiful cultural conservatism mixed with a keen ear for both popular concerns and social consensus - it's not for nothing that Margaret Thatcher angrily complained that she was "the sort of woman would probably vote SDP".
Very good observation.
I'd say she's a classic example of a small-c conservative: change in order to conserve.
I'd far rather Thatcher said that about her than she was "one of us".
It is interesting to reflect the only Prime Minister ever to be in effect publicly criticised by HM is Thatcher. All the others, she has kept quiet about. I sometimes wonder whether Thatcher thought of the Queen as a ‘wet’ and treated her accordingly.
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
He has to win the nomination. If he wins and is still taking rubbish then Boris is home and dry again.
To be honest that one non answer has made him a hostage to fortune and a gift to Boris.
It was an unnnecessary misstep
Nope. You’re just sucked into Boris’ slogans and cartoonish view of the world. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No? It’s a simple question. Answer it.
RLB and Nandy answered it , and what beating your wife has to do with it is a nonsense
He will rue the day he prevaricated on the use of our nuclear weapon, especially in the former red wall seats
On topic, if the role of the monarchy is no different to that of the president of Germany, then dispense with the palaces, the 'Royal Highness' titles for so many of their family and the OTT forelock tugging and deference.
I would like to be able to vote for our next head of state. I have no problem with Charles or William standing as candidates. I might even rank them above the Tory candidate - assuming we would use AV.
The grandeur and majesty of the monarchy is kind of its point. It's that which gives it its magic and propels the symbols of our state to another level through its pomp and pageantry.
The ranks, rituals and mythology that go with it are part of what gives it its dignity.
We need both its stories and its divinity for it to be admired and envied as an institution.
Whatever the hypothetical polling currently shows, I suspect Sanders is going to get crushed by Trump.
But I may be wrong.
I thought the Primary Process would do what it usually does, and winnow the field. By now, I thought at least a couple of the moderates would have left the race. But that hasn't happened. Although the chance of Klobuchar winning is virtually zero, she's still in the race. For the former front runner to flop so hard he was fifth in New Hampshire should probably have resulted in his exit.
Almost every result seems to have been designed to give hope to one or other second tier candidate. New Hampshire gave hope to Klobuchar. Nevada to Biden.
But in keeping everyone in the game, there has been only one winner: Bernie Sanders.
And who created this circumstance? Michael Bloomberg.
He did this in two ways. He prevented anyone from gaining momentum, as he was the news story. And he became the bogeyman: vote Sanders to stop another billionaire winning the Democratic Primary. An old billionaire's vanity will give us Sanders vs Trump. And it will probably lead to a crushing Trump victory - because while Sanders may be polling well in hypotheticals, all the evidence is that his actual policies are deeply unpopular with middle America.
He will be slaughtered.
I think your hopes were Biden then Buttgieg, weren't they? Old mutton and naive lamb to an even more conclusive slaughter according to the polling.
On topic, if the role of the monarchy is no different to that of the president of Germany, then dispense with the palaces, the 'Royal Highness' titles for so many of their family and the OTT forelock tugging and deference.
I would like to be able to vote for our next head of state. I have no problem with Charles or William standing as candidates. I might even rank them above the Tory candidate - assuming we would use AV.
The grandeur and majesty of the monarchy is kind of its point. It's that which gives it its magic and propels the symbols of our state to another level through its pomp and pageantry.
The ranks, rituals and mythology that go with it are part of what gives it its dignity.
We need both its stories and its divinity for it to be admired and envied as an institution.
On topic, if the role of the monarchy is no different to that of the president of Germany, then dispense with the palaces, the 'Royal Highness' titles for so many of their family and the OTT forelock tugging and deference.
I would like to be able to vote for our next head of state. I have no problem with Charles or William standing as candidates. I might even rank them above the Tory candidate - assuming we would use AV.
The grandeur and majesty of the monarchy is kind of its point. It's that which gives it its magic and propels the symbols of our state to another level through its pomp and pageantry.
The ranks, rituals and mythology that go with it are part of what gives it its dignity.
We need both its stories and its divinity for it to be admired and envied as an institution.
Fwiw Right now I think Sanders, Biden and Warren are worth backing at the prices, and Klobuchar (Just). Not laying Buttigieg and Bloomberg because of the weird 93.8% back total for the runners.
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
Have you had 'Labour supporters' on social media telling you that?
You cannot accept that the SNP is not perfect and is under fire on policies across the political divide but then you will not see Independence no matter if another referendum is called
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
He has to win the nomination. If he wins and is still taking rubbish then Boris is home and dry again.
To be honest that one non answer has made him a hostage to fortune and a gift to Boris.
It was an unnnecessary misstep
Nope. You’re just sucked into Boris’ slogans and cartoonish view of the world. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No? It’s a simple question. Answer it.
RLB and Nandy answered it , and what beating your wife has to do with it is a nonsense
He will rue the day he prevaricated on the use of our nuclear weapon, especially in the former red wall seats
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
He has to win the nomination. If he wins and is still taking rubbish then Boris is home and dry again.
To be honest that one non answer has made him a hostage to fortune and a gift to Boris.
It was an unnnecessary misstep
Nope. You’re just sucked into Boris’ slogans and cartoonish view of the world. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No? It’s a simple question. Answer it.
RLB and Nandy answered it , and what beating your wife has to do with it is a nonsense
He will rue the day he prevaricated on the use of our nuclear weapon, especially in the former red wall seats
I suppose we should be grateful that Nandy wasn't asked if she would press the button to keep the Union intact.
I'm stunned that Starmer failed to answer. The Tories will be delighted at that hostage to fortune.
This does show how flawed Starmer is. He is so frightened of his support he cannot give an honest answer in case he upsets them
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
He has to win the nomination. If he wins and is still taking rubbish then Boris is home and dry again.
To be honest that one non answer has made him a hostage to fortune and a gift to Boris.
It was an unnnecessary misstep
Nope. You’re just sucked into Boris’ slogans and cartoonish view of the world. Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No? It’s a simple question. Answer it.
RLB and Nandy answered it , and what beating your wife has to do with it is a nonsense
He will rue the day he prevaricated on the use of our nuclear weapon, especially in the former red wall seats
I don't think Starmer's non answer on Trident will harm him. It hasn't harmed the SNP in Scotland - people just don't believe it's the bedrock of our security. I wonder actually if he's not thinking of trying to entice back SNP supporters actually. SNP are going through very squally times, set to get worse. It has been said that Labour cannot win except through Scotland.
If as looks increasingly likely Sanders ends up Denocratic nominee and Trump is re elected, looks like another Kennedy could be waiting in the wings for 2024
Comments
Nonetheless control measures should not be abandoned. We know from the Spanish Flu pandemic that areas that employed measures to slow spread, such as closing schools, theatres, sporting events etc reduced the overall number of deaths.
There are many countries out there that cope remarkably well without a constitutional monarch. A stable long term settlement is not something you want to rip up without consideration of what replaces it.
I could imagine something maybe along the Irish system of an elected president who plays a similar role to that of the monarch under our system, but plays no executive role in the functioning of the Government.
I do like that in our system loyalty is not sworn to the holder of office of the prime minister but to HMQ and her successors. This is not just a quaint tradition. Any PM who thinks that when it comes down to it, that a member of the armed forces from squaddie to chief of defence staff would side with them over the Sovereign, if such a situation arose, will be sorely disappointed.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8034387/Fears-14-day-coronavirus-quarantine-short-pensioner-took-27-days-symptoms.html
My father thinks the NHS (and most health systems) aren't geared up for a mass event like this.
A compromise would be to remain as monarch in name but to designate a Prince (or Princess) Regent who carries out all duties.
Elizabeth I was 69 when she died.
*Pedant hat OFF, then back ON*
Henry VIII was not 56, he was 55, and that *was* old in that timeframe. Henry VII was 52 when he died. He was the first King of England since Edward III in 1362 to live to see 50. After the Norman Conquest, not one English monarch* lived to see 70 until George II. Elizabeth II is in fact the only one to have made it past 81.
*Richard Cromwell made it to 85.
*Pedant hat OFF*
I would add that, rather than simply being conservative, part of the Queen's success has been a dutiful cultural conservatism mixed with a keen ear for both popular concerns and social consensus - it's not for nothing that Margaret Thatcher angrily complained that she was "the sort of woman would probably vote SDP".
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1231611469667721216
Trump 46
http://www.monarchy.net/Reading.aspx
But I may be wrong.
I thought the Primary Process would do what it usually does, and winnow the field. By now, I thought at least a couple of the moderates would have left the race. But that hasn't happened. Although the chance of Klobuchar winning is virtually zero, she's still in the race. For the former front runner to flop so hard he was fifth in New Hampshire should probably have resulted in his exit.
Almost every result seems to have been designed to give hope to one or other second tier candidate. New Hampshire gave hope to Klobuchar. Nevada to Biden.
But in keeping everyone in the game, there has been only one winner: Bernie Sanders.
And who created this circumstance? Michael Bloomberg.
He did this in two ways. He prevented anyone from gaining momentum, as he was the news story. And he became the bogeyman: vote Sanders to stop another billionaire winning the Democratic Primary. An old billionaire's vanity will give us Sanders vs Trump. And it will probably lead to a crushing Trump victory - because while Sanders may be polling well in hypotheticals, all the evidence is that his actual policies are deeply unpopular with middle America.
10 municipalites are locked down with police now controlling exit routes.
Cinema and theaters are ordered to close in Lombardy region. Pubs should close after 6pm
Schools and universities are closed in Lombardy, Veneto, Friuli, Piemonte and Trentino since tomorrow.
Masses have been canceled in all churches located in Lombardy starting from this evening. The same order have just been given by the bishop of Venice.
The Milan cathedral is going to be closed tomorrow
What the Democrats need is somebody who can take all of them and mount a strong challenge in places like North Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Arizona that are Republican but very dubious about Trump.
Sanders simply isn’t that person. Can anyone imagine him winning Florida?
2. Even if it were correct, I suspect Bernie would score better in places like California (where he'd effectively get the very large base out) than in states that are actually competitive.
My wife is distraught. Her view is that as Trump will now win a second term, we will need to leave the US.
SeanTEadric to look after the quarantine arrnagments?https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_sanders-6768.html
And there is a third element: their media purchases have made it almost impossible for another candidate other than the already well funded Sanders to create a virtuous surge/fundraising/media-buy circle.
Still, I am as we speak confident the path will be clear.
The degree of social control, information on citizens, and perhaps most importantly, the resources available in comparison to the size of the population (and land area) mean that following their example would be virtually impossible.
It’s about as sensible as using Singapore for a post Brexit model.
And so many think he is the messiah when plainly he is no leader
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
A better answer would be ‘I don’t know, and I wouldn’t know until I was in that situation.’ That would be a very smart answer, both truthful and admitting an element of human weakness.
The honest answer is yes or no
https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1231611469667721216
Sadly, this is the state we are in. It's much better for a politician to be dishonest. The key thing is not to be too obvious about it.
It was an unnnecessary misstep
You either use it or lose it
I'd say she's a classic example of a small-c conservative: change in order to conserve.
I'd far rather Thatcher said that about her than she was "one of us".
‘No’ vote 45% = victory for The Union.
Democracy my arse.
He will rue the day he prevaricated on the use of our nuclear weapon, especially in the former red wall seats
He's going to get destroyed in South Carolina.
The ranks, rituals and mythology that go with it are part of what gives it its dignity.
We need both its stories and its divinity for it to be admired and envied as an institution.
Not laying Buttigieg and Bloomberg because of the weird 93.8% back total for the runners.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
My review: she’s getting my vote. She gets it.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1230898043735678978?s=20