JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
I believe this is quite plausible.
Yeah. Insufficiently implausible to make a suspend-the-disbelief plot.
Can we please also finally change the English national anthem to Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem? It is ridiculous and in my view disrespectful to Wales to have God Save the Queen as our anthem when she is their Queen too and the same goes for when England plays Scotland or Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
Just play God Save the Queen when a royal is in attendance at an England game alongside the English anthem or for Team GB at the Olympics
How about we sing a national anthem that is about the country and not asking a sky fairy to save a wealthy individual "born to rule over us"?
Quite right. Jerusalem probably fits the bill? Haven’t double checked every lyric!
Still a bit religious, as is Land of Hope and Glory, but not enough to bother me. I'd be happy with either but prefer the latter.
Jerusalem and Land of Hope and Glory are both what an anthem should be - about what you want your country to be. Not sycophantically pandering to an individual.
Land of Peace and Fairness. Brothers all are we.
No objection to revising the words. Just keep the tune.
All these old hymns have problems imo.
Hold a competition for a new secular anthem.
Change the national anthem to Bohemian Rhapsody, an anthem we all know and love.
That would be an awesome anthem to be played while our athletes walked in at the Olympics.
"Scaramouche Scaramouche will you do the Fandango?"
You want that in the National Anthem?
Yes!
As a line it sure beats "Send her victorious, Happy and glorious, Long to reign over us"
Well you cannot argue that it hasn't been an effective line.
Can we please also finally change the English national anthem to Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem? It is ridiculous and in my view disrespectful to Wales to have God Save the Queen as our anthem when she is their Queen too and the same goes for when England plays Scotland or Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand or Canada.
Just play God Save the Queen when a royal is in attendance at an England game alongside the English anthem or for Team GB at the Olympics
How about we sing a national anthem that is about the country and not asking a sky fairy to save a wealthy individual "born to rule over us"?
The Queen is our Head of State and anointed by God at her coronation and the royal anthem reflects that, however that does not prevent having an English national anthem as well
"Anointed by God" 😂
We're a country with people and voters, not a theocracy.
If you want to pray to a God on Sundays or any other day then that's fine, do whatever you please. Don't shove it down the rest of our throats though.
Part of our Head of State's coronation oath as Head of the Church of England as well as Head of State is to 'maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant reformed religion established by law', the monarch is also crowned and anointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury
But she doesn't maintain the laws of God.
Otherwise she would have punished her fornicating and adulterous eldest son, the son that is likely to succeed her.
Absolutely which is yet another reason its long past time to get rid of these religious fripperies.
If LadyG and HYUFD want to believe in religious babble then I have no qualms with them going to whatever Temple, Church, Mosque or whatever else floats their boat any day they want to. Just don't expect everyone else to share your fantasies.
Well, tough shit, because the chances of changing the national anthem are about 0.3%, or less, and if we did it would likely be replaced by Jerusalem, which is even more religious. And, of course, the chances of us becoming a republic are significantly lower
The chances of becoming a republic in HMQs liftetime is 0% The chances of becoming a republic in my lifetime is much higher than that.
But the post you replied to spoke about religion not the monarchy, though I can see why you'd mix up those two medieval absurdities. Disestablishment of the Church in my lifetime, removing the Bishops from Parliament etc in my lifetime I expect to be well, well over 50%.
Your religion is medieval bollocks and not shared by everyone in this country. Get over it. Pray in your Churches but leave the rest of us out of it.
A religion is like a penis, it is fine to have one, it is fine to be proud of it, but please don't wave it about in public and please don't shove it uninvited down the throat of others.
Let me get this straight: @LadyG is shoving her penis uninvited down your throat?
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
The terminally stupid don't realise if we go for a 'let it rip' strategy is that the country will go into a de facto lockdown as they don't want to catch it, it is kinda what happened in Sweden.
Except, with all due respect Mr Eagles, that isn't what happened in Sweden. I've family over there, there facing nothing like the restrictions in the UK.
I accept that population density, living arrangements, demographics, culture etc are different - their policies may not be suitable here. But lets not misrepresent what the situation is, life seems pretty good judging from what I'm hearing.
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
I believe this is quite plausible.
And hence why the west and India must unite together to contain China
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
The terminally stupid don't realise if we go for a 'let it rip' strategy is that the country will go into a de facto lockdown as they don't want to catch it, it is kinda what happened in Sweden.
Some would and some wouldn't.
A 90% asymptomatic rate isn't going to worry many of the young.
A lot of them don't want dead grandparents though.
Possible answers:
1) Granny is already dead 2) Granny lives miles away 3) Granny is a miserable old scrote 4) Great, I'll get an inheritance
That's even if they associate an evening in Nandos with granny dying.
Maybe, although I'm not sure even a veteran politician can navigate that issue, when there's nothing to be gained from confirming it one way or another. Refusing to answer will hardly hurt him more than whichever answer he might choose to give.
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
The terminally stupid don't realise if we go for a 'let it rip' strategy is that the country will go into a de facto lockdown as they don't want to catch it, it is kinda what happened in Sweden.
Except, with all due respect Mr Eagles, that isn't what happened in Sweden. I've family over there, there facing nothing like the restrictions in the UK.
I accept that population density, living arrangements, demographics, culture etc are different - their policies may not be suitable here. But lets not misrepresent what the situation is, life seems pretty good judging from what I'm hearing.
But you must know that though the Swedes may like us they are not like us. And we couldn't become like them.
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
I believe this is quite plausible.
And hence why the west and India must unite together to contain China
That might be a good idea regardless of whether conspiracy theories are true or not.
Not that I expect they mind the theories at all, but even if they were brutal authoritarian dictatorships can hardly get sniffy about people assuming the worst.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
CNN: The New England Journal of Medicine is, as the name suggests, mostly focused on, well, medicine. Which makes what it published this week all the more important and impactful.
In an editorial titled "Dying in a Leadership Vacuum," the editors of the Journal blasted President Donald Trump (although not by name) for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Here's the key bit:
"Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment. Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs."
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
The terminally stupid don't realise if we go for a 'let it rip' strategy is that the country will go into a de facto lockdown as they don't want to catch it, it is kinda what happened in Sweden.
Well, exactly, And Sweden's GDP is expected to decline by 3-4% this year.
Unlike the 5-10% or more in UK, France, Italy, Spain. And the accompanying debt, deficit, unemployment, illness, education issues, etc etc etc
There is almost no doubt now. A medium touch voluntary CONSISTENT keep-the-schools open policy was the way to go, from the start. The Swedes were right.
If people are prepared to accept the consequential cost in lives of that strategy that'd be one thing - presumably the Swedes are - but most people here talking about it may not be given how they generally talk about it.
On the Monarchy people often forget that they're basically living in a gilded cage where the gaolers are MPs.
The Line of Succession is determined by Statute, and the Abdication Crisis reaffirmed the principle that if the Commons ends up with a Monarch they don't like they will get rid.
What this means is that there's no barrier to us separating their ceremonial function from their constitutional function. If we wanted to we could retain the Monarch, but create the post of Lord Lieutenant (or whatever) of the United Kingdom, which would be appointed by the Monarch to exercise their constitutional power.
We could then decide to elect the Lord Lieutenant through a nationwide election. The Lord Lieutenant would then have the legitimacy to be able to defy/dismiss a Prime Minister, were one to try and abuse the constitution by proroguing Parliament inappropriately, or passing an Enabling Act, or squat in Number Ten after an election defeat.
Then we have all the soft power and tourism benefits of the Monarchy, without the problems created by them not being able to exercise their residual constitutional functions.
I'm taking a week off from PB (holiday in Cornwall and I promised Mrs P I wouldn't be on t'internet all week). So you'll just have to get by without my pissy pithy contributions.
I am sure nothing much will be happening in the coming week anyway.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
Looking back at the last 5 years (if not the last 5 decades) do you not see anything highly politican and divisive in our politics or in our country anyway?
Politics is divisive because we are divided in the way we think, but politics remains the best way to sort out our differences. Better than guns.
Neither having a monarchy, nor not having a monarchy, makes politics any more or less divisive.
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
I believe this is quite plausible.
Really?
I mean, really?
Firstly, China would much rather weaken its neighbours than the West. Its neighbours are its competitors, while the West is its customer.
Secondly, presumably they got a vaccine ready in advance. But if they did that, they probably would have realised that this wasn't a hard disease to make a vaccine for.
Thirdly, a vaccine that improves the West's woeful dependency ratios is good (economically) for the West longer term. As a weapon, this is a pretty poor one, as it gets rid of the oldies while leaving the young basically untouched.
Fourthly, you're betting that the West won't be sensible (like Japan and Sweden have been sensible).
And those are just the most obvious reasons why it's bullhit.
Also, why bother with an entirely new disease? And why have your initial cluster in China? Why not simply release - like in that Clancy novel - SARS at an international airport?
Portillo excellent about the need for debate on corona policy. “The thing is you then get all sorts of good questions like ‘how would this work?’ and you answer them before the legislation is drafted not afterwards.”
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
I believe this is quite plausible.
Really?
I mean, really?
Firstly, China would much rather weaken its neighbours than the West. Its neighbours are its competitors, while the West is its customer.
Secondly, presumably they got a vaccine ready in advance. But if they did that, they probably would have realised that this wasn't a hard disease to make a vaccine for.
Thirdly, a vaccine that improves the West's woeful dependency ratios is good (economically) for the West longer term. As a weapon, this is a pretty poor one, as it gets rid of the oldies while leaving the young basically untouched.
Fourthly, you're betting that the West won't be sensible (like Japan and Sweden have been sensible).
And those are just the most obvious reasons why it's bullhit.
Also, why bother with an entirely new disease? And why have your initial cluster in China? Why not simply release - like in that Clancy novel - SARS at an international airport?
I’m glad you went to the effort of writing that Robert.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
I think that's a touch harsh on republics in general, but I do think symbols are important - republics are full of them, though few quite as successful in their symbols and myths as the USA - in the same way that gesture politics can be important on occasion - sometimes you need to make a gesture - and my general position is will we really get all that many benefits from changing our system at this point, at the cost of that clean break from most of our history? Given the vestigial nature of the institution, I'm not particularly persuaded the symbolic advantages actually gain us much.
That if the system ever really did become a problem with our democratic ideals it would very swiftly be changed, counter intuitively speaks in its favour to me. If Charles or William or whoever stepped out of line as monarch, it'd be game over. With all the power with the elected, what harm a figurehead?
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
It is curious that those most invested in republicanism, the real loathers of monarchy, are often those most invested in atheism and secularism. And they share the same misguided snobbery you describe.
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
Looking back at the last 5 years (if not the last 5 decades) do you not see anything highly politican and divisive in our politics or in our country anyway?
Politics is divisive because we are divided in the way we think, but politics remains the best way to sort out our differences. Better than guns.
Neither having a monarchy, nor not having a monarchy, makes politics any more or less divisive.
I think The Queen is able to unite and stabilise in a way no-one else can.
Portillo excellent about the need for debate on corona policy. “The thing is you then get all sorts of good questions like ‘how would this work?’ and you answer them before the legislation is drafted not afterwards.”
Amen.
Indeed.
Its a shocking travesty that when Brady (supposedly) had MPs ready to ensure Ministers answered to Parliament, the SNP and Labour both decided they'd rather the Government continue to be enabled to act by executive fiat instead.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
France. “Totally boring and forgotten/highly political and divisive.”
Or
The most popular tourist destination in the world.
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
I believe this is quite plausible.
Really?
I mean, really?
Firstly, China would much rather weaken its neighbours than the West. Its neighbours are its competitors, while the West is its customer.
Secondly, presumably they got a vaccine ready in advance. But if they did that, they probably would have realised that this wasn't a hard disease to make a vaccine for.
Thirdly, a vaccine that improves the West's woeful dependency ratios is good (economically) for the West longer term. As a weapon, this is a pretty poor one, as it gets rid of the oldies while leaving the young basically untouched.
Fourthly, you're betting that the West won't be sensible (like Japan and Sweden have been sensible).
And those are just the most obvious reasons why it's bullhit.
Also, why bother with an entirely new disease? And why have your initial cluster in China? Why not simply release - like in that Clancy novel - SARS at an international airport?
And yet, you were clueless about this disease when it emerged in January. Totally clueless and dumb
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
It is curious that those most invested in republicanism, the real loathers of monarchy, are often those most invested in atheism and secularism. And they share the same misguided snobbery you describe.
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
I'm an atheist monarchist who is also a fan of Cromwell and secularism. Heck, I snuck in a quote from the prosecutor of Charles I in a post the other day and was miffed no one noticed!
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
Looking back at the last 5 years (if not the last 5 decades) do you not see anything highly politican and divisive in our politics or in our country anyway?
Politics is divisive because we are divided in the way we think, but politics remains the best way to sort out our differences. Better than guns.
Neither having a monarchy, nor not having a monarchy, makes politics any more or less divisive.
I think The Queen is able to unite and stabilise in a way no-one else can.
We saw that this year.
This Queen can. So can David Attenborough.
This Queen's strengths are part of who she is and the era she was brought up in and what she has seen.
There is a reason even most republicans respect the Queen and it isn't because of her title.
Can Charles do the same? Could Harry if something had happened to William? I'm not convinced.
I rather think William is the best hope the monarchy has of surviving. He seems to have learnt from both his mother and grandmother.
Portillo excellent about the need for debate on corona policy. “The thing is you then get all sorts of good questions like ‘how would this work?’ and you answer them before the legislation is drafted not afterwards.”
Amen.
The compliance of MPs has been somewhat surprising, particularly given how far into this event we are. I mean, we know that Parliament is capable of truncating its procedures to pass legislation very quickly if it needs to, whilst still allowing some amount of debate (albeit rushed debate), and many of the issues could be talked about a lot more than they have or at least get more parliamentary oversight without slowing response down overmuch. Local councillors have put up more fight.
Portillo excellent about the need for debate on corona policy. “The thing is you then get all sorts of good questions like ‘how would this work?’ and you answer them before the legislation is drafted not afterwards.”
Amen.
Indeed.
Its a shocking travesty that when Brady (supposedly) had MPs ready to ensure Ministers answered to Parliament, the SNP and Labour both decided they'd rather the Government continue to be enabled to act by executive fiat instead.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
Looking back at the last 5 years (if not the last 5 decades) do you not see anything highly politican and divisive in our politics or in our country anyway?
Politics is divisive because we are divided in the way we think, but politics remains the best way to sort out our differences. Better than guns.
Neither having a monarchy, nor not having a monarchy, makes politics any more or less divisive.
I think The Queen is able to unite and stabilise in a way no-one else can.
We saw that this year.
This Queen can. So can David Attenborough.
This Queen's strengths are part of who she is and the era she was brought up in and what she has seen.
There is a reason even most republicans respect the Queen.
Can Charles do the same? Could Harry if something had happened to William? I'm not convinced.
I rather think William is the best hope the monarchy has of surviving. He seems to have learnt from both his mother and grandmother.
If the Queen and Charles and William all died tomorrow, which hopefully they won't, then Prince George would become King, probably with a Regent, effectively a UK governor general, until he came of age.
That is partly I suspect why the Sussexes decided to give up being royals and move to California, Harry is now only 6th in line to the throne and his son 7th whereas 10 years ago Harry was 3rd in line to the throne
I was reading some sci-fi novel a couple of weeks ago, I cannot even remember the name unfortunately, where there was a European superstate with an elected, ceremonial president, and there was surprise when the King of the UK was elected, but apparently as the role mostly involved going to the opening of civic buildings and making small talk with people whilst being powerless, everyone just sort of figured who was better at that that the UK monarchy.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
It is curious that those most invested in republicanism, the real loathers of monarchy, are often those most invested in atheism and secularism. And they share the same misguided snobbery you describe.
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
Bullshit.
You are projecting again.
For such an intelligent, incisive bloke you veer too often into daft prejudice about those that challenge you.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
It is curious that those most invested in republicanism, the real loathers of monarchy, are often those most invested in atheism and secularism. And they share the same misguided snobbery you describe.
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
That is extremely well put and there is truth there.
But equally on the other side - ardent monarchists - one finds much triteness of thinking and sloppy sentimentality.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
Looking back at the last 5 years (if not the last 5 decades) do you not see anything highly politican and divisive in our politics or in our country anyway?
Politics is divisive because we are divided in the way we think, but politics remains the best way to sort out our differences. Better than guns.
Neither having a monarchy, nor not having a monarchy, makes politics any more or less divisive.
I think The Queen is able to unite and stabilise in a way no-one else can.
We saw that this year.
This Queen can. So can David Attenborough.
This Queen's strengths are part of who she is and the era she was brought up in and what she has seen.
There is a reason even most republicans respect the Queen.
Can Charles do the same? Could Harry if something had happened to William? I'm not convinced.
I rather think William is the best hope the monarchy has of surviving. He seems to have learnt from both his mother and grandmother.
If the Queen and Charles and William all died tomorrow, which hopefully they won't, then Prince George would become King, probably with a Regent, effectively a UK governor general, until he came of age
I know that which is why I said "if something had happened to William". "Had" is past tense, specifically before he had children.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
It is curious that those most invested in republicanism, the real loathers of monarchy, are often those most invested in atheism and secularism. And they share the same misguided snobbery you describe.
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
Bullshit.
You are projecting again.
For such an intelligent, incisive bloke you veer too often into daft prejudice about those that challenge you.
Er, bit of an odd over-reaction to a comment not aimed at you?
ANYHOW, I am off to watch Call the Midwife, which is excellent (I am only now catching up) and which might, just might, persuade me to pay my BBC licence fee once again.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
It is curious that those most invested in republicanism, the real loathers of monarchy, are often those most invested in atheism and secularism. And they share the same misguided snobbery you describe.
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
I'm an atheist monarchist who is also a fan of Cromwell and secularism. Heck, I snuck in a quote from the prosecutor of Charles I in a post the other day and was miffed no one noticed!
Good grief. I'm a religious Republican who would have fought for the Monarchy in the Civil War. Amazingly, I am more often than not in agreement with your posts.
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
I believe this is quite plausible.
Really?
I mean, really?
Firstly, China would much rather weaken its neighbours than the West. Its neighbours are its competitors, while the West is its customer.
Secondly, presumably they got a vaccine ready in advance. But if they did that, they probably would have realised that this wasn't a hard disease to make a vaccine for.
Thirdly, a vaccine that improves the West's woeful dependency ratios is good (economically) for the West longer term. As a weapon, this is a pretty poor one, as it gets rid of the oldies while leaving the young basically untouched.
Fourthly, you're betting that the West won't be sensible (like Japan and Sweden have been sensible).
And those are just the most obvious reasons why it's bullhit.
Also, why bother with an entirely new disease? And why have your initial cluster in China? Why not simply release - like in that Clancy novel - SARS at an international airport?
And yet, you were clueless about this disease when it emerged in January. Totally clueless and dumb
It's probably best for your fragile ego that I don't mention the many things you have been wrong about.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
It is curious that those most invested in republicanism, the real loathers of monarchy, are often those most invested in atheism and secularism. And they share the same misguided snobbery you describe.
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
Bullshit.
You are projecting again.
For such an intelligent, incisive bloke you veer too often into daft prejudice about those that challenge you.
Er, bit of an odd over-reaction to a comment not aimed at you?
ANYHOW, I am off to watch Call the Midwife, which is excellent (I am only now catching up) and which might, just might, persuade me to pay my BBC licence fee once again.
Nighty night.
Well you aimed it squarely at republican atheists, so I understandably took it as a swipe at me, given I am a godless opposer of rule by genetic lottery.
2nd day Mail has led on an anti-lockdown story. He's certainly losing that part of the dressing room.
A few months ago they were all over the government for not going hard enough.
I think only the Torygraph has been on the anti-lockdown bandwagon from the beginning.
In a few weeks the Mail might shamelessly be back on the "didn't lock down soon enough" bandwagon.
Any excuse to be angry, that is the Mail's demographic.
But as I pointed out earlier, they thought PM Johnson rose to the occasion with his speech to digital conference on Tuesday whereas you didn't.
I said he did. You asked if it was one of his greatest and I said the occasion didn't call for one of his greatest.
He's at his greatest with barnstorming optimism and that would have been highly inappropriate at this occasion. So he rose to this occasion instead.
You seem to be adjusting your view to come in line with the Daily Mail. Preferred your earlier authentic take on the matter. We both know he did NOT rise to the occasion. He has been known to but on this occasion he didn't. We should leave it there.
Not sure whether to believe the empirical surveys that say Kamala won by a street, given that a number of PBers have spent most of the day explaining why Pence won.
2nd day Mail has led on an anti-lockdown story. He's certainly losing that part of the dressing room.
A few months ago they were all over the government for not going hard enough.
I think only the Torygraph has been on the anti-lockdown bandwagon from the beginning.
In a few weeks the Mail might shamelessly be back on the "didn't lock down soon enough" bandwagon.
Any excuse to be angry, that is the Mail's demographic.
But as I pointed out earlier, they thought PM Johnson rose to the occasion with his speech to digital conference on Tuesday whereas you didn't.
I said he did. You asked if it was one of his greatest and I said the occasion didn't call for one of his greatest.
He's at his greatest with barnstorming optimism and that would have been highly inappropriate at this occasion. So he rose to this occasion instead.
You seem to be adjusting your view to come in line with the Daily Mail. Preferred your earlier authentic take on the matter. We both know he did NOT rise to the occasion. He has been known to but on this occasion he didn't. We should leave it there.
How am I adjusting my view when my view at the time was "He did rise to the occasion."
2nd day Mail has led on an anti-lockdown story. He's certainly losing that part of the dressing room.
A few months ago they were all over the government for not going hard enough.
I think only the Torygraph has been on the anti-lockdown bandwagon from the beginning.
In a few weeks the Mail might shamelessly be back on the "didn't lock down soon enough" bandwagon.
Any excuse to be angry, that is the Mail's demographic.
But as I pointed out earlier, they thought PM Johnson rose to the occasion with his speech to digital conference on Tuesday whereas you didn't.
I said he did. You asked if it was one of his greatest and I said the occasion didn't call for one of his greatest.
He's at his greatest with barnstorming optimism and that would have been highly inappropriate at this occasion. So he rose to this occasion instead.
You seem to be adjusting your view to come in line with the Daily Mail. Preferred your earlier authentic take on the matter. We both know he did NOT rise to the occasion. He has been known to but on this occasion he didn't. We should leave it there.
How am I adjusting my view when my view at the time was "He did rise to the occasion."
The Queen's Speech will be a real kicker this year
"Yeah, it's been a bit of a pisser, really, hasn't it?
I mean, we must come together as one, or whatever. Except Harry"
'2020 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an anus horribilis...'
The Queen's Speech will be a real kicker this year
"Yeah, it's been a bit of a pisser, really, hasn't it?
I mean, we must come together as one, or whatever. Except Harry"
'2020 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an anus horribilis...'
I do hope you mean annus. I can't imagine HM referring to a horrible anus.
Not sure whether to believe the empirical surveys that say Kamala won by a street, given that a number of PBers have spent most of the day explaining why Pence won.
She won it. Just watched the clips. Pence was wooden and hard to hear. Plus his face could not seem to handle any expression apart from faintly nonplussed. Reminded me of the guy in Airplane. Then he got a fly squatting on his head.
2nd day Mail has led on an anti-lockdown story. He's certainly losing that part of the dressing room.
A few months ago they were all over the government for not going hard enough.
I think only the Torygraph has been on the anti-lockdown bandwagon from the beginning.
In a few weeks the Mail might shamelessly be back on the "didn't lock down soon enough" bandwagon.
Any excuse to be angry, that is the Mail's demographic.
But as I pointed out earlier, they thought PM Johnson rose to the occasion with his speech to digital conference on Tuesday whereas you didn't.
I said he did. You asked if it was one of his greatest and I said the occasion didn't call for one of his greatest.
He's at his greatest with barnstorming optimism and that would have been highly inappropriate at this occasion. So he rose to this occasion instead.
You seem to be adjusting your view to come in line with the Daily Mail. Preferred your earlier authentic take on the matter. We both know he did NOT rise to the occasion. He has been known to but on this occasion he didn't. We should leave it there.
How am I adjusting my view when my view at the time was "He did rise to the occasion."
The Queen's Speech will be a real kicker this year
"Yeah, it's been a bit of a pisser, really, hasn't it?
I mean, we must come together as one, or whatever. Except Harry"
'2020 is not a year on which I shall look back with undiluted pleasure. In the words of one of my more sympathetic correspondents, it has turned out to be an anus horribilis...'
I do hope you mean annus. I can't imagine HM referring to a horrible anus.
The modification was indeed deliberate. If any year was ever to merit the title, it would certainly be this one. Plus annus horribilis has already been used for 1992. 1992! Can you imagine? We didn't know how good we had it...
A bit of a gaffe from Biden who going on previous comments doesn’t want to pack the SC. I think he could have handled the question better . Perhaps there’s a better way to deflect the question ! The progressive wing of the party want him to go nuclear but he perhaps should say I don’t currently have any plans to do that , let’s wait and see what happens with the Barrett confirmation . This could hurt not necessarily his election chances but down ballot Senate races taking place in normally GOP leaning states .
In terms of Trump , today he seems determined to lose even more suburban women voters with his disgraceful comments calling Harris a monster . Then his day got worse with the FBI investigation into a plot to kidnap the Dem Governor of Michigan , Gretchen Whitmer . Trump has constantly attacked her in the past and his Liberate Michigan tweet and suspected support for militias will likely cement Michigan for the Dems . Whitmer is popular in her state and her comments today linking Trumps rhetoric have had a lot of coverage in the USA.
Not sure whether to believe the empirical surveys that say Kamala won by a street, given that a number of PBers have spent most of the day explaining why Pence won.
She won it. Just watched the clips. Pence was wooden and hard to hear. Plus his face could not seem to handle any expression apart from faintly nonplussed. Reminded me of the guy in Airplane. Then he got a fly squatting on his head.
So what is the “empirical” composition of that poll then by demographic, weighting etc?
The focus group from Luntz on the night showed a clear Pence victory.
A bit of a gaffe from Biden who going on previous comments doesn’t want to pack the SC. I think he could have handled the question better . Perhaps there’s a better way to deflect the question ! The progressive wing of the party want him to go nuclear but he perhaps should say I don’t currently have any plans to do that , let’s wait and see what happens with the Barrett confirmation . This could hurt not necessarily his election chances but down ballot Senate races taking place in normally GOP leaning states .
In terms of Trump , today he seems determined to lose even more suburban women voters with his disgraceful comments calling Harris a monster . Then his day got worse with the FBI investigation into a plot to kidnap the Dem Governor of Michigan , Gretchen Whitmer . Trump has constantly attacked her in the past and his Liberate Michigan tweet and suspected support for militias will likely cement Michigan for the Dems . Whitmer is popular in her state and her comments today linking Trumps rhetoric have had a lot of coverage in the USA.
Agree re Biden. He should have ducked it and gave a vague, non-committal answer. Unfortunately for him, he’s got a bit of the worst of both in both firing up conservatives but also appearing to insult voters by saying it’s not a matter for them
Not sure whether to believe the empirical surveys that say Kamala won by a street, given that a number of PBers have spent most of the day explaining why Pence won.
She won it. Just watched the clips. Pence was wooden and hard to hear. Plus his face could not seem to handle any expression apart from faintly nonplussed. Reminded me of the guy in Airplane. Then he got a fly squatting on his head.
I agree, but those swing voters in the focus group seemed to be annoyed by Harris's attitude during Pence's contributions.
Not sure whether to believe the empirical surveys that say Kamala won by a street, given that a number of PBers have spent most of the day explaining why Pence won.
She won it. Just watched the clips. Pence was wooden and hard to hear. Plus his face could not seem to handle any expression apart from faintly nonplussed. Reminded me of the guy in Airplane. Then he got a fly squatting on his head.
So what is the “empirical” composition of that poll then by demographic, weighting etc?
The focus group from Luntz on the night showed a clear Pence victory.
Let’s see the data behind the Harris victory.
From what I saw, Kamala was sassy and bright. Loved her expressions, which seemed pretty natural to me. That’s the way women often communicate - nonverbal expression. You preferred the emotionless male automaton? Fine. But the polling supports my view that she won by a street, without ever hammering the utterly dull Pence.
A bit of a gaffe from Biden who going on previous comments doesn’t want to pack the SC. I think he could have handled the question better . Perhaps there’s a better way to deflect the question ! The progressive wing of the party want him to go nuclear but he perhaps should say I don’t currently have any plans to do that , let’s wait and see what happens with the Barrett confirmation . This could hurt not necessarily his election chances but down ballot Senate races taking place in normally GOP leaning states .
In terms of Trump , today he seems determined to lose even more suburban women voters with his disgraceful comments calling Harris a monster . Then his day got worse with the FBI investigation into a plot to kidnap the Dem Governor of Michigan , Gretchen Whitmer . Trump has constantly attacked her in the past and his Liberate Michigan tweet and suspected support for militias will likely cement Michigan for the Dems . Whitmer is popular in her state and her comments today linking Trumps rhetoric have had a lot of coverage in the USA.
Agree re Biden. He should have ducked it and gave a vague, non-committal answer. Unfortunately for him, he’s got a bit of the worst of both in both firing up conservatives but also appearing to insult voters by saying it’s not a matter for them
Not sure whether to believe the empirical surveys that say Kamala won by a street, given that a number of PBers have spent most of the day explaining why Pence won.
She won it. Just watched the clips. Pence was wooden and hard to hear. Plus his face could not seem to handle any expression apart from faintly nonplussed. Reminded me of the guy in Airplane. Then he got a fly squatting on his head.
I agree, but those swing voters in the focus group seemed to be annoyed by Harris's attitude during Pence's contributions.
Most women I know communicate a lot non-verbally, much more than men I would say. She just seemed normal to me in this regard.
Guernsey 38 past the post out of 119 candidates has had high turn out - 19,000 out of 21,000 postal ballots returned and over 50% turn out at the polling stations - overall turnout around 74% - a record.
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
Remember the LadyG Covid rule:
Imagine your reasonable worst case scenario, because that is what will happen
So far, quite effective.
There won't be a vaccine until well into 2021, and it will come with many problems with resistance and manufacture: is my guess. I hope I am wrong.
The only viable vaccine will be the Chinese one. In 2022.
Highly possible. Cementing Chinese supremacy and the decline of the West, especially America. This would be my narrative twist if I were scripting Covid The Movie
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they already have it. Look at their stats! And they sequenced the RNA in a jiffy back in February.
I've long had this theory, and I have espoused it on here.
The Chinese discovered this new bat coronavirus, in that famous Wuhan lab, and realised its bioweapon potential pretty soon: the way it would attack western economies and their crucial liberties, while barely touching Asian societies with high conformity and surveillance.
They kept it in reserve. The idea was to threaten it - or even release it - when America was about to throw nukes over Taiwan. But the Chinese plan was only to release it when China already had a vaccine, a vaccine they could then swiftly offer to the world, thereby being seen as a saviour, while fucking the West and America, economically.
The virus escaped by accident too early, maybe it leaked at that market, via a bat in a stew. So the Chinese have had to accelerate the plan and develop a virus very very fast.
I believe this is quite plausible.
Really?
I mean, really?
Firstly, China would much rather weaken its neighbours than the West. Its neighbours are its competitors, while the West is its customer.
Secondly, presumably they got a vaccine ready in advance. But if they did that, they probably would have realised that this wasn't a hard disease to make a vaccine for.
Thirdly, a vaccine that improves the West's woeful dependency ratios is good (economically) for the West longer term. As a weapon, this is a pretty poor one, as it gets rid of the oldies while leaving the young basically untouched.
Fourthly, you're betting that the West won't be sensible (like Japan and Sweden have been sensible).
And those are just the most obvious reasons why it's bullhit.
Also, why bother with an entirely new disease? And why have your initial cluster in China? Why not simply release - like in that Clancy novel - SARS at an international airport?
Without saying anything about the original “plausibility”, aren’t most of these objections missing the suggestion that what has actually happened occurred “accidentally” and wasn’t planned?
JFC they are just praying for a vaccine. What if we don't get one, for years, or forever?
Does every vulnerable person stay indoors and alone until they die of madness, anyway?
In the end we simply have to brave the virus, and take the risks
What if we do get one in a month's time?
It seems mad to go through all we've gone through, be in the final stages of vaccine trials - only to then let it rip just weeks before the vaccine trials are scheduled to end.
If we were going to let it just go naturally, we should have made that decision back in February/March when Eadric, Bryonic and co were shitting the bed.
I suspect they know a vaccine is coming soon.
The terminally stupid don't realise if we go for a 'let it rip' strategy is that the country will go into a de facto lockdown as they don't want to catch it, it is kinda what happened in Sweden.
And how exactly is this a problem? I'd much rather manage my own personal risk levels myself than via the jack booted plod enforcing petty rules.
People keep suggesting that because when lockdowns aren't enforced some of the population locksdown anyway to some extent this is bad. Far from it, it means people are taking sensible decisions, whilst prioritising what matters most to them, instead of a one size fits all system that's full of absurdities.
Guernsey 38 past the post out of 119 candidates has had high turn out - 19,000 out of 21,000 postal ballots returned and over 50% turn out at the polling stations - overall turnout around 74% - a record.
Edit - turnout 79.9% - the Chief Minister and Chair of the Health Committee who have led the COVID response along with the CMO topping the poll.
A bit of a gaffe from Biden who going on previous comments doesn’t want to pack the SC. I think he could have handled the question better . Perhaps there’s a better way to deflect the question ! The progressive wing of the party want him to go nuclear but he perhaps should say I don’t currently have any plans to do that , let’s wait and see what happens with the Barrett confirmation . This could hurt not necessarily his election chances but down ballot Senate races taking place in normally GOP leaning states .
“I reject and will work to move away from a politics which currently appears trapped in a destructive spiral of ever growing polarisation which cannot end well for our constitutional arrangements. I will look to work with Democrats and Republicans alike who are publicly or secretly dismayed by what has happened to our body politic over the last 20 years to try to draw a line in the sand. As a first step I appeal to Republicans currently holding power in Washington to reflect on the last few years and consider whether their interests will be best served by forcing through the current nominee to SCOTUS in an unseemly rush and in defiance of principles that they claimed to espouse only 4 years ago. How we will approach these matters post election will depend on the situation we find ourselves in at that time”
Sound like it might have been a pre-prepared story published in error... BIT like obituaries for people still alive, but ready to go at a moment’s notice.
I think there's a certain intellectual snobbery to republicanism - as if liking symbols and traditions are a bit plebian and bread & circuses to keep them in their place, which anyone "enlightened" would see for what it is - and also a theoretical dislike of formalised institutional hierarchy with an ultra-libertarian desire to be free of it.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
It is curious that those most invested in republicanism, the real loathers of monarchy, are often those most invested in atheism and secularism. And they share the same misguided snobbery you describe.
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
Bullshit.
You are projecting again.
For such an intelligent, incisive bloke you veer too often into daft prejudice about those that challenge you.
Er, bit of an odd over-reaction to a comment not aimed at you?
ANYHOW, I am off to watch Call the Midwife, which is excellent (I am only now catching up) and which might, just might, persuade me to pay my BBC licence fee once again.
Nighty night.
Well you aimed it squarely at republican atheists, so I understandably took it as a swipe at me, given I am a godless opposer of rule by genetic lottery.
Maybe I’m being oversensitive!
No you were right it was utter bullshit. It's an infantile failure of the imagination to think that organised religion and monarchies (!) have a monopoly on the "importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art"
It has been posted a couple of times already but I cannot recall any discussion.
I don't know, might it put off a few of the more fervent anti-abortion Trump voters? Might be worth highlighting via a question to trump about whether he was right to restrict such research/has he changed his mind? If there are any more debates...
It has been posted a couple of times already but I cannot recall any discussion.
I don't know, might it put off a few of the more fervent anti-abortion Trump voters? Might be worth highlighting via a question to trump about whether he was right to restrict such research/has he changed his mind? If there are any more debates...
It might but who is the alternative? And it was always Mike Pence who was seen as the link to the Evangelical right, rather than Trump himself. In practice, I doubt it will make much difference. No-one will jump ship from Trump to Biden on this issue.
Comments
I accept that population density, living arrangements, demographics, culture etc are different - their policies may not be suitable here. But lets not misrepresent what the situation is, life seems pretty good judging from what I'm hearing.
1) Granny is already dead
2) Granny lives miles away
3) Granny is a miserable old scrote
4) Great, I'll get an inheritance
That's even if they associate an evening in Nandos with granny dying.
Not that I expect they mind the theories at all, but even if they were brutal authoritarian dictatorships can hardly get sniffy about people assuming the worst.
However, when you get down to it, monarchs serve us - not the other way round. They provide colour, majesty, stability, grandeur, diplomacy, duty and service. They represent tradition, continuity and nation through a real flesh and blood family - stretching back over 1,000 years - and so remind people of their own families and legacies here too, which is why they're so popular.
Republics are either totally boring and forgotten about, or highly political and divisive.
In an editorial titled "Dying in a Leadership Vacuum," the editors of the Journal blasted President Donald Trump (although not by name) for his handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Here's the key bit:
"Anyone else who recklessly squandered lives and money in this way would be suffering legal consequences. Our leaders have largely claimed immunity for their actions. But this election gives us the power to render judgment. Reasonable people will certainly disagree about the many political positions taken by candidates. But truth is neither liberal nor conservative. When it comes to the response to the largest public health crisis of our time, our current political leaders have demonstrated that they are dangerously incompetent. We should not abet them and enable the deaths of thousands more Americans by allowing them to keep their jobs."
Maybe you could write it.
The Line of Succession is determined by Statute, and the Abdication Crisis reaffirmed the principle that if the Commons ends up with a Monarch they don't like they will get rid.
What this means is that there's no barrier to us separating their ceremonial function from their constitutional function. If we wanted to we could retain the Monarch, but create the post of Lord Lieutenant (or whatever) of the United Kingdom, which would be appointed by the Monarch to exercise their constitutional power.
We could then decide to elect the Lord Lieutenant through a nationwide election. The Lord Lieutenant would then have the legitimacy to be able to defy/dismiss a Prime Minister, were one to try and abuse the constitution by proroguing Parliament inappropriately, or passing an Enabling Act, or squat in Number Ten after an election defeat.
Then we have all the soft power and tourism benefits of the Monarchy, without the problems created by them not being able to exercise their residual constitutional functions.
I'm taking a week off from PB (holiday in Cornwall and I promised Mrs P I wouldn't be on t'internet all week). So you'll just have to get by without my pissy pithy contributions.
I am sure nothing much will be happening in the coming week anyway.
Politics is divisive because we are divided in the way we think, but politics remains the best way to sort out our differences. Better than guns.
Neither having a monarchy, nor not having a monarchy, makes politics any more or less divisive.
I mean, really?
Firstly, China would much rather weaken its neighbours than the West. Its neighbours are its competitors, while the West is its customer.
Secondly, presumably they got a vaccine ready in advance. But if they did that, they probably would have realised that this wasn't a hard disease to make a vaccine for.
Thirdly, a vaccine that improves the West's woeful dependency ratios is good (economically) for the West longer term. As a weapon, this is a pretty poor one, as it gets rid of the oldies while leaving the young basically untouched.
Fourthly, you're betting that the West won't be sensible (like Japan and Sweden have been sensible).
And those are just the most obvious reasons why it's bullhit.
Also, why bother with an entirely new disease? And why have your initial cluster in China? Why not simply release - like in that Clancy novel - SARS at an international airport?
Amen.
Somebody had to.
That if the system ever really did become a problem with our democratic ideals it would very swiftly be changed, counter intuitively speaks in its favour to me. If Charles or William or whoever stepped out of line as monarch, it'd be game over. With all the power with the elected, what harm a figurehead?
They do not - cannot - understand the huge power and importance of symbols, emotions, memories, traditions, myths, legends, art. They mistake their emotional autism for intellectual superiority, when, ironically, they are the ones who are deficient.
We saw that this year.
Its a shocking travesty that when Brady (supposedly) had MPs ready to ensure Ministers answered to Parliament, the SNP and Labour both decided they'd rather the Government continue to be enabled to act by executive fiat instead.
Or
The most popular tourist destination in the world.
Take your pick!
This Queen's strengths are part of who she is and the era she was brought up in and what she has seen.
There is a reason even most republicans respect the Queen and it isn't because of her title.
Can Charles do the same? Could Harry if something had happened to William? I'm not convinced.
I rather think William is the best hope the monarchy has of surviving. He seems to have learnt from both his mother and grandmother.
And that is a sentence I never thought I’d write again.
That is partly I suspect why the Sussexes decided to give up being royals and move to California, Harry is now only 6th in line to the throne and his son 7th whereas 10 years ago Harry was 3rd in line to the throne
You are projecting again.
For such an intelligent, incisive bloke you veer too often into daft prejudice about those that challenge you.
But equally on the other side - ardent monarchists - one finds much triteness of thinking and sloppy sentimentality.
"Yeah, it's been a bit of a pisser, really, hasn't it?
I mean, we must come together as one, or whatever. Except Harry"
ANYHOW, I am off to watch Call the Midwife, which is excellent (I am only now catching up) and which might, just might, persuade me to pay my BBC licence fee once again.
Nighty night.
Amazingly, I am more often than not in agreement with your posts.
If there was eg a tragic car crash that resulted in the deaths of William and all of his children then would Harry be second in line after Charles?
Maybe I’m being oversensitive!
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1314320780663107586?s=20
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3050476#Comment_3050476
https://twitter.com/siennamarla/status/1314215432228925441
Anyway, something to cheer you up:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G87UXIH8Lzo
That's totally different.
https://twitter.com/wongmjane/status/1314337185873555459?s=21
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/3050476#Comment_305047
Follow the link and reread it if you don't believe me. We are a bit past the five minute edit window. Why would I use the word sank?
In terms of Trump , today he seems determined to lose even more suburban women voters with his disgraceful comments calling Harris a monster . Then his day got worse with the FBI investigation into a plot to kidnap the Dem Governor of Michigan , Gretchen Whitmer . Trump has constantly attacked her in the past and his Liberate Michigan tweet and suspected support for militias will likely cement Michigan for the Dems . Whitmer is popular in her state and her comments today linking Trumps rhetoric have had a lot of coverage in the USA.
The focus group from Luntz on the night showed a clear Pence victory.
Let’s see the data behind the Harris victory.
People keep suggesting that because when lockdowns aren't enforced some of the population locksdown anyway to some extent this is bad. Far from it, it means people are taking sensible decisions, whilst prioritising what matters most to them, instead of a one size fits all system that's full of absurdities.
Or something like that...
https://eu.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/media/2020/10/08/deadline-mike-pence-covid-19/5930935002/
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1314380019146412034?s=21
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/08/trump-covid-drug-developed-using-cells-derived-from-abortion
Might be worth highlighting via a question to trump about whether he was right to restrict such research/has he changed his mind? If there are any more debates...