UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
What's strange about this, is we know that they will u-turn on it, so why do it?
They are required to recommend to the pay review body a figure so making the case for a low one in the circumstances is likely to result in a more acceptable compromise.
Remember the nursing Union is asking for a 12 %rise
Bit of an opening for unionist parties in Scotland now, it would seem
Absolutely - the question is how they play it. The Tories surely can't play on democratic accountability with Davidson departing for the Lords, or on not being bent when the government in Westminster is as corrupt as it is, or on governance when Brexit is knackering Scottish business. If Anas Sarwar can string a coherent "I am the new guy" narrative message together then Labour could potentially win back some seats in the central belt. LibDems in the north & west? Greens on the list vote?
Or - as my plumber suggests - may may not vote at all. He doesn't trust anything Sturgeon or Salmond says. But doesn't think the other parties are any different never mind better...
Salmond is going to be the saviour of the Union...
It'd be nice to think so. Though after condemning those allegedly conspiring against him there will presumably be some amusement in him telling everyone to vote for them in May regardless.
Not to relitigate but there is at the very least a strong case that private schools are incompatible with equal opportunities in education. To call that argument outdated bollocks is er ... bollocks. If that's the level of your thinking on the topic you are wise to not engage.
What disappoints me @kinabalu is your lack of ambition.
You are arguing that private schools are a priori better than publicly funded schools
Bollocks to that! Let’s make publicly funded schools so good that not many people feel the need to pay extra for private education (there will always be a few, such as Eton, which will have demand for their brand, but most private schools are not in that category)
Classic platitude to dodge the issue - unless it comes with the equalisation of funding per pupil. If it does, we're talking, we're really talking. But of course it doesn't. People who say this always bail out at that point and start to make noises about "it's not all about money".
See I've had this debate so many times and I know the tracks it follows.
What's strange about this, is we know that they will u-turn on it, so why do it?
One - sometimes a backlash might not be as significant as predicted, so you might be able to get away with the lowball offer.
Two - if they had started at, say, 3% they'd have faced the same kind of backlash, so either no credit for starting at where they might end up u-turning to, and indeed they might be able to keep the u-turn to lower than if they'd started with a higher offer.
My knowledge of German politics is limited to say the least; however, why would the Greens agree to become junior partners in a centre-right led coalition, rather than taking over as the main opposition and watching whilst the SPD is further squeezed?
Salmond is going to be the saviour of the Union...
It'd be nice to think so. Though after condemning those allegedly conspiring against him there will presumably be some amusement in him telling everyone to vote for them in May regardless.
"The movement and the party are bigger than any individual"?
Naah - doesn't work coming from someone with a planet-sized ego. Its in his interests to have tthe SNP falter, Sturgeon and her clique removed, and then he and his step back in.
Regardless, the likelihood of a Unionist majority in the May election is still very remote, and any other result means Sturgeon back as First Minister and loud, continuous demands for a second referendum. One poll does not a Union save.
Agreed, but you have been unshakeable in the belief the union is over and believe you me, from someone involved in Scotland for over 65 years, there is lot of water to flow under the border bridges at Berwick before Scotland become independent even if it does
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
What's strange about this, is we know that they will u-turn on it, so why do it?
Because whatever they'd offered there would have been this furore. If they'd offered 2%. or 3%, the reaction would have been exactly the same. So why bother offering more?
What's strange about this, is we know that they will u-turn on it, so why do it?
Because whatever they'd offered there would have been this furore. If they'd offered 2%. or 3%, the reaction would have been exactly the same. So why bother offering more?
It is like Gordon Brown's 75p increase in pensions, an increase so low that people consider it an insult.
NHS story, is another drip. The kind of thing that over a long period builds up something of a picture
Eh, it's hard to tell it apart from any number of a thousand NHS drip stories over the last 11 years. When is the bucket going to overflow? It's like with the 'winter crisis' NHS stories we get every year (apart from this year, for the obvious reason they've been in crisis all year), I'm just totally numb to it.
Intellectually, stories about the NHS getting a bad hand out or some major problem down to funding or reorganisation or whatever I still get, but they just don't resonate with me - the impression I have after 16 years as an adult is that the NHS is always on the verge of collapse, saying they are poorly treated and paid, and no government can or will do anything about it.
Now I know they cannot be right, and that there will have been peaks and troughs throughout it, but I just cannot emotionally connect with NHS stories. I know that's unfair, and I also try to put aside the awful customer service I've had any time I've had to interact with the NHS, but it is what it is.
For all I know the normal view of the institution is quite different, much more positive, I do wonder if national treasure or not exhaustion sets in.
A fun anecdote about Shaun Bailey - I was once in a strategy meeting with some Bailey campaign staffers talking about local campaign issues in different London boroughs, when Shaun came into the room to listen in. Eventually, he piped up to ask us if we'd heard of the Low Emissions Zone, and spent a few minutes showing us where the M25 was on a big map of London they had in the office.
Cheers Shaun!
My 'favourite' Shaun Bailey story was his recent suggestion that Londoners in temporary accommodation or homeless could benefit from shared ownership schemes as many of them would be able to rustle up a £5K deposit. He did, to his credit, acknowledge that they may struggle a bit more with being granted a mortgage.
The man's a complete idiot, regardless of personal political preference. I'm really surprised the Tories have let him get this far. Even if nobody else would have a chance of winning London, he's a bit damaging to the Tory brand.
Having interacted with him several times, I don't think he's an idiot. I think he's probably above average intelligence. However, he does seem to think that other people are much thicker than he is. Depending on how charitable your view is, I guess you could interpret this as a consequence of a career spent trying to help drug addicts and secondary school dropouts turn their lives around, where he probably was always the smartest guy in the room; or you could interpret it as a kind of Dunning-Kruger style inflated ego. It doesn't help that CCHQ have surrounded him with incompetent yes-men who encourage the worst parts of him out of fear of losing their jobs.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
Salmond is going to be the saviour of the Union...
It'd be nice to think so. Though after condemning those allegedly conspiring against him there will presumably be some amusement in him telling everyone to vote for them in May regardless.
"The movement and the party are bigger than any individual"?
Naah - doesn't work coming from someone with a planet-sized ego. Its in his interests to have tthe SNP falter, Sturgeon and her clique removed, and then he and his step back in.
Except, that would entail a bigger change of Government personnel than independence. EVERYBODY in the Scottish Govt. and Establishment will need to be moved out.
NHS story, is another drip. The kind of thing that over a long period builds up something of a picture
Eh, it's hard to tell it apart from any number of a thousand NHS drip stories over the last 11 years. When is the bucket going to overflow? It's like with the 'winter crisis' NHS stories we get every year (apart from this year, for the obvious reason they've been in crisis all year), I'm just totally numb to it.
Intellectually, stories about the NHS getting a bad hand out or some major problem down to funding or reorganisation or whatever I still get, but they just don't resonate with me - the impression I have after 16 years as an adult is that the NHS is always on the verge of collapse, saying they are poorly treated and paid, and no government can or will do anything about it.
Now I know they cannot be right, and that there will have been peaks and troughs throughout it, but I just cannot emotionally connect with NHS stories. I know that's unfair, and I also try to put aside the awful customer service I've had any time I've had to interact with the NHS, but it is what it is.
For all I know the normal view of the institution is quite different, much more positive, I do wonder if national treasure or not exhaustion sets in.
Salmond is going to be the saviour of the Union...
It'd be nice to think so. Though after condemning those allegedly conspiring against him there will presumably be some amusement in him telling everyone to vote for them in May regardless.
"The movement and the party are bigger than any individual"?
Naah - doesn't work coming from someone with a planet-sized ego. Its in his interests to have tthe SNP falter, Sturgeon and her clique removed, and then he and his step back in.
There is always the Scottish Greens. I don't know if they are as out there as the English and Welsh Greens though.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
Yes, but in that time it's dropping off, rather than give a booster, you're vaccinating many more people. So driving down the general prevalence.
Not by much. It is 60% in that graph, and the risk to an 80 year old of 60% is more than a 56 year old with 60%.
Worth noting too that the X axis on the hospitalisations graph is different to the infections one, and much smaller numbers as Scotland rather than England.
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.
If you've given someone a first shot, they've got *some* antibodies. You could give them a second shot after three weeks and top them up. Or you could give someone else first shot. The second approach a) protects two people sub-optimally rather than one person optimally, and more importantly b) there are now two people through whom the virus is unlikely to spread, so the third, fourth and fifth people do not get it.
Meanwhile, the first person is still subject to all the tedious lockdown restrictions; he can't go out celebrating his newfound immunity even if he wanted to.
I haven't done the modelling myself! But to me the approach makes sense.
Personally if I was Boris Johnson I would set up a public inquiry about granting the devolved assemblies the same level of privilege/parliamentary immunity as Westminster.
He could give Alex Salmond as much time as he wanted to explain his position.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
That's a massive shift. So Sturgeon didn't do so well after all. Perhaps I was more attuned than all the pro media observers. She did badly, and it was obvious she was, and is, lying
With many more revelations to come, right up to the election, it is now highly possible the Nats will not get their majority
Why tell us about it if it is going to be that bad? The press and the royals ('working' or not) are so symbiotic. The royals (again, 'working' and not) may act like they hate the press, and mean it, but they know they need it as well. And the press loves the Harry stuff, makes for better copy than just glamour shots.
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
Yes, but in that time it's dropping off, rather than give a booster, you're vaccinating many more people. So driving down the general prevalence.
Not by much. It is 60% in that graph, and the risk to an 80 year old of 60% is more than a 56 year old with 60%.
Worth noting too that the X axis on the hospitalisations graph is different to the infections one, and much smaller numbers as Scotland rather than England.
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.
If you've given someone a first shot, they've got *some* antibodies. You could give them a second shot after three weeks and top them up. Or you could give someone else first shot. The second approach a) protects two people sub-optimally rather than one person optimally, and more importantly b) there are now two people through whom the virus is unlikely to spread, so the third, fourth and fifth people do not get it.
Meanwhile, the first person is still subject to all the tedious lockdown restrictions; he can't go out celebrating his newfound immunity even if he wanted to.
I haven't done the modelling myself! But to me the approach makes sense.
Yes, but you assume the risk to each individual is the same.
It would be interesting to do the maths on whether it is better to do second jabs on 80 year olds over first jabs on 50 year olds.
Rishi Sunak has vowed to tackle the dominance of tech giants such as Facebook and Google by ensuring they pay a fair rate of tax and do not abuse their market position to squash rivals.
In the wake of his £65 billion raid on household incomes and company profits in Wednesday’s Budget, the Chancellor is preparing to set out plans on March 23, which is being called ‘tax day’, to fill the £407 billion hole left by the pandemic.
Among the options is an ‘online sales tax’ targeting the explosion in internet shopping triggered by the crisis, which has benefited companies such as Amazon at the expense of traditional high street stores.
A fun anecdote about Shaun Bailey - I was once in a strategy meeting with some Bailey campaign staffers talking about local campaign issues in different London boroughs, when Shaun came into the room to listen in. Eventually, he piped up to ask us if we'd heard of the Low Emissions Zone, and spent a few minutes showing us where the M25 was on a big map of London they had in the office.
Cheers Shaun!
My 'favourite' Shaun Bailey story was his recent suggestion that Londoners in temporary accommodation or homeless could benefit from shared ownership schemes as many of them would be able to rustle up a £5K deposit. He did, to his credit, acknowledge that they may struggle a bit more with being granted a mortgage.
The man's a complete idiot, regardless of personal political preference. I'm really surprised the Tories have let him get this far. Even if nobody else would have a chance of winning London, he's a bit damaging to the Tory brand.
For all it's a complete hospital pass, and obviously was from the start, how did Shaun Bailey get to be the candidate?
Shaun Bailey seems to have been a permanent Conservative candidate for over a decade.
Does anyone know how much he will have earned from it ?
Mention of Shaun Bailey brings to mind the 'Tatler Tories' from the peak of Cameroon hubris:
Amusingly the constituencies these future Conservative cabinet ministers were expected to win were:
Hammersmith Tooting Westminster North Somerton Perth Bristol NW Luton N Oxford W Kingston
Not good predictors of the future were they.
The assumption at the time was that metropolitan/suburban middle-class constituencies in the south were the path to victory, funnily enough written up by metropolitan/suburban middle-class people living in the south.
That's a massive shift. So Sturgeon didn't do so well after all. Perhaps I was more attuned than all the pro media observers. She did badly, and it was obvious she was, and is, lying
With many more revelations to come, right up to the election, it is now highly possible the Nats will not get their majority
The Daily Stars cut-out objects are becoming absurd now. How is that meant to contain any quantity of anything, let alone vomit? The non-symettrical Cummings mask was one thing, but this is just pathetic.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term. It is closer than the Daily Mail or Piers Morgan would have you believe.
"When it comes to the dispute between the Royal Family and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan), with whom do your sympathies mostly lie?
The Queen and members of the Royal Family
All: 38% 18-24:16% 25-49: 27% 50-65: 45% 65+: 60%
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan)
All: 18% 18-24: 40% 25-49: 23% 50-65: 11% 65+: 8%
Which is why the TV Daily Mail USA is, if anything, pro-Meghan. Because their audience does NOT include hordes of Tory geezers who hated the very concept of Meghan Markle even when then Queen was (apparently) cheering her on.
One wonders if the chinless wonders at the Palace have deliberately - or is it unwittingly - sabotaged QEII's ongoing effort to prepare the House of Windor-Etc, Etc. for the rigors of the mid-21st century, when she will no longer be around to mind the Firm? . BTW, poll subsamples show zero gender gap on issue Megan & Harry versus Queen & rest of Royal Family, and not much difference between middle & lower class voters.
However, it does show that Tories, southern Englanders and geezers.
That's a massive shift. So Sturgeon didn't do so well after all. Perhaps I was more attuned than all the pro media observers. She did badly, and it was obvious she was, and is, lying
With many more revelations to come, right up to the election, it is now highly possible the Nats will not get their majority
Well played, MI5, well played
Fingers crossed. But what is the process now - if there are indeed many more revelations to come, how are they to get a lot of attention, as presumably the box office events of Salmond and Sturgeon testifying won't be happening again?
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
NHS story, is another drip. The kind of thing that over a long period builds up something of a picture
Eh, it's hard to tell it apart from any number of a thousand NHS drip stories over the last 11 years. When is the bucket going to overflow? It's like with the 'winter crisis' NHS stories we get every year (apart from this year, for the obvious reason they've been in crisis all year), I'm just totally numb to it.
Intellectually, stories about the NHS getting a bad hand out or some major problem down to funding or reorganisation or whatever I still get, but they just don't resonate with me - the impression I have after 16 years as an adult is that the NHS is always on the verge of collapse, saying they are pernment can or will do anything about it.
Now I know they cannot be right, and that there will have been peaks and troughs throughout it, but I just cannot emotionally connect with NHS stories. I know that's unfair, and I also try to put aside the awful customer service I've had any time I've had to interact with the NHS, but it is what it is.
For all I know the normal view of the institution is quite different, much more positive, I do wonder if national treasure or not exhaustion sets in.
Very true. Support for the NHS is virtue signalling for the masses. Easier than complex, weird things like BLM or trans rights.
Nurses are good! Not dying is good! Hooray for medicines! Let doctors do their precious, life-saving work!
Who is going to dis-a-fucking-gree? No one
Drill down into these fluffy opinions and you often find hard evidence of personal dissatisfaction with the NHS, alongside the many heart-warming stories. Few want to get rid of it, but the idea it is universally worshipped is nonsense.
It is a bit like the monarchy, in many ways. It is ours and it is time honoured so we cling to it, but ask the average person more deeply, and you will find many who demur
Can someone in, oh, three or less normal-length sentences give me the uber-brief explanation of precisely what the kerfuffle about Harry and Meghan is, because I profess to a complete failure to understand what it actually is about.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term. It is closer than the Daily Mail or Piers Morgan would have you believe.
"When it comes to the dispute between the Royal Family and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan), with whom do your sympathies mostly lie?
The Queen and members of the Royal Family
All: 38% 18-24:16% 25-49: 27% 50-65: 45% 65+: 60%
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan)
All: 18% 18-24: 40% 25-49: 23% 50-65: 11% 65+: 8%
Which is why the TV Daily Mail USA is, if anything, pro-Meghan. Because their audience does NOT include hordes of Tory geezers who hated the very concept of Meghan Markle even when then Queen was (apparently) cheering her on.
One wonders if the chinless wonders at the Palace have deliberately - or is it unwittingly - sabotaged QEII's ongoing effort to prepare the House of Windor-Etc, Etc. for the rigors of the mid-21st century, when she will no longer be around to mind the Firm? . BTW, poll subsamples show zero gender gap on issue Megan & Harry versus Queen & rest of Royal Family, and not much difference between middle & lower class voters.
However, it does show that Tories, southern Englanders and geezers.
Hey, southern Englanders are not all the same! We South Westerners disdain the South East just as much as the rest of the country does - they use us for second homes.
That's a massive shift. So Sturgeon didn't do so well after all. Perhaps I was more attuned than all the pro media observers. She did badly, and it was obvious she was, and is, lying
With many more revelations to come, right up to the election, it is now highly possible the Nats will not get their majority
Well played, MI5, well played
There's also no point now at which Sturgeon draws a line under this and it JUST. GOES. AWAY. The Committee's SNP members might try to whitewash it. But that will just lead to a minority report that says she lied through her teeth and the following 216 point remain unanswered.
The institutionalised maladministration of her regime only goes away as a story with her departure.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
The dip in Pfizer efficacy against symptomatic disease perhaps foretells where the Hospitalisations curve might follow in a few weeks. It does look like 12 weeks might be a stretch for second Pfizet doses, and I hope the ability to pivot a little and foreshorten that gap specifically for Pfizer is something the vaccination campaign organisers are alive to.
Yes, although the efficacy against hospitalisation is still rising at that point.
Nowhere near as good as the Israel results with second dose at 3 weeks though.
While that's true, you're thinking (as a doctor) in terms of the individual. You are focusing on the local maxima. The optimum outcome for an individual with the Pfizer vaccine is to get the second dose three works after the first.
But the system optima is to crush the prevalance of the virus, and that is best achieved by getting as many jabs in arms as quickly as possible.
In which case you want to reduce infections, not just hospitalisations, and looking at the graph in the header, that drops off noticeably without the booster.
Yes, but in that time it's dropping off, rather than give a booster, you're vaccinating many more people. So driving down the general prevalence.
Not by much. It is 60% in that graph, and the risk to an 80 year old of 60% is more than a 56 year old with 60%.
Worth noting too that the X axis on the hospitalisations graph is different to the infections one, and much smaller numbers as Scotland rather than England.
I don't think I'm explaining myself very well.
If you've given someone a first shot, they've got *some* antibodies. You could give them a second shot after three weeks and top them up. Or you could give someone else first shot. The second approach a) protects two people sub-optimally rather than one person optimally, and more importantly b) there are now two people through whom the virus is unlikely to spread, so the third, fourth and fifth people do not get it.
Meanwhile, the first person is still subject to all the tedious lockdown restrictions; he can't go out celebrating his newfound immunity even if he wanted to.
I haven't done the modelling myself! But to me the approach makes sense.
Yes, but you assume the risk to each individual is the same.
It would be interesting to do the maths on whether it is better to do second jabs on 80 year olds over first jabs on 50 year olds.
Good point. I think the nature of the situation we are in has precluded th3 chance to trial the best approach. I hope we’ve got it right, and I think we probably have, but I’m more confident of the AZ delay than the Pfizer. There is a bit of an issue with behaviour change after vaccination. Some people are definitely assuming they are safe, probably after just one jab. If we were doin* the strict three weeks for Pfizer, they would probably be better protected quicker, and so their relaxation would be less of a worry.
Can someone in, oh, three or less normal-length sentences give me the uber-brief explanation of precisely what the kerfuffle about Harry and Meghan is, because I profess to a complete failure to understand what it actually is about.
I think it is like this:
1) Being a 'working' royal is a weird, constricting existence, preventing you from doing or saying what you want but providing wealth and attention.
2) Harry and Meghan stepped away from that after negotiations with the Palace, but relationships broke down as a result.
3) Both sides have been leaking petty stories about each other in retaliation for the Sussexes being lazy/self obsessed or the Palace being close minded meanies.
It's hard to escape, as royals are big box office, but it all seems to have been rather dull stuff, as if there were explosive claims from either side we'd have heard about it before now, otherwise holding it back would show neither side really cares about it.
NHS story, is another drip. The kind of thing that over a long period builds up something of a picture
Eh, it's hard to tell it apart from any number of a thousand NHS drip stories over the last 11 years. When is the bucket going to overflow? It's like with the 'winter crisis' NHS stories we get every year (apart from this year, for the obvious reason they've been in crisis all year), I'm just totally numb to it.
Intellectually, stories about the NHS getting a bad hand out or some major problem down to funding or reorganisation or whatever I still get, but they just don't resonate with me - the impression I have after 16 years as an adult is that the NHS is always on the verge of collapse, saying they are pernment can or will do anything about it.
Now I know they cannot be right, and that there will have been peaks and troughs throughout it, but I just cannot emotionally connect with NHS stories. I know that's unfair, and I also try to put aside the awful customer service I've had any time I've had to interact with the NHS, but it is what it is.
For all I know the normal view of the institution is quite different, much more positive, I do wonder if national treasure or not exhaustion sets in.
Very true. Support for the NHS is virtue signalling for the masses. Easier than complex, weird things like BLM or trans rights.
Nurses are good! Not dying is good! Hooray for medicines! Let doctors do their precious, life-saving work!
Who is going to dis-a-fucking-gree? No one
Drill down into these fluffy opinions and you often find hard evidence of personal dissatisfaction with the NHS, alongside the many heart-warming stories. Few want to get rid of it, but the idea it is universally worshipped is nonsense.
It is a bit like the monarchy, in many ways. It is ours and it is time honoured so we cling to it, but ask the average person more deeply, and you will find many who demur
The reason that BoZo put £350 000 000 per week for the NHS on the side of the bus is that they knew it played well with older Brexiteers.
Now they have to deliver, whether you like it or not.
That's a massive shift. So Sturgeon didn't do so well after all. Perhaps I was more attuned than all the pro media observers. She did badly, and it was obvious she was, and is, lying
With many more revelations to come, right up to the election, it is now highly possible the Nats will not get their majority
Well played, MI5, well played
Fingers crossed. But what is the process now - if there are indeed many more revelations to come, how are they to get a lot of attention, as presumably the box office events of Salmond and Sturgeon testifying won't be happening again?
The continuing revelations will feature in her daily conferences (if she continues to hold them) from the journalists, from the opposition in the Scots Parliament, and will drip free across the Scottish media every day to polling day
I have no idea how this pans out, but it is more uncertain now than before her appearance last Wednesday
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
There's a big difference between how age affects economics and social attitudes.
Economics changes as people grow up and become more economically dry.
Social attitudes is the opposite. Newer generations evolve and push the envelope on social attitudes but keep those with them when they grow up, only to find younger generations have pushed the envelope further past where they'd imagined.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
Probably not. The key is whether they become deeply opposed to Charles and Will - the institution can get by just fine with apathy, for quite a while at least (see any number of places where it is still the monarchy, seemingly as no ons is bothered to change it while HMQ is alive).
Can someone in, oh, three or less normal-length sentences give me the uber-brief explanation of precisely what the kerfuffle about Harry and Meghan is, because I profess to a complete failure to understand what it actually is about.
I think it is like this:
1) Being a 'working' royal is a weird, constricting existence, preventing you from doing or saying what you want but providing wealth and attention.
2) Harry and Meghan stepped away from that after negotiations with the Palace, but relationships broke down as a result.
3) Both sides have been leaking petty stories about each other in retaliation for the Sussexes being lazy/self obsessed or the Palace being close minded meanies.
It's hard to escape, as royals are big box office, but it all seems to have been rather dull stuff, as if there were explosive claims from either side we'd have heard about it before now, otherwise holding it back would show neither side really cares about it.
Thanks @kle4 . I feel like I "get it" a bit more now.
NHS story, is another drip. The kind of thing that over a long period builds up something of a picture
Eh, it's hard to tell it apart from any number of a thousand NHS drip stories over the last 11 years. When is the bucket going to overflow? It's like with the 'winter crisis' NHS stories we get every year (apart from this year, for the obvious reason they've been in crisis all year), I'm just totally numb to it.
Intellectually, stories about the NHS getting a bad hand out or some major problem down to funding or reorganisation or whatever I still get, but they just don't resonate with me - the impression I have after 16 years as an adult is that the NHS is always on the verge of collapse, saying they are pernment can or will do anything about it.
Now I know they cannot be right, and that there will have been peaks and troughs throughout it, but I just cannot emotionally connect with NHS stories. I know that's unfair, and I also try to put aside the awful customer service I've had any time I've had to interact with the NHS, but it is what it is.
For all I know the normal view of the institution is quite different, much more positive, I do wonder if national treasure or not exhaustion sets in.
Very true. Support for the NHS is virtue signalling for the masses. Easier than complex, weird things like BLM or trans rights.
Nurses are good! Not dying is good! Hooray for medicines! Let doctors do their precious, life-saving work!
Who is going to dis-a-fucking-gree? No one
Drill down into these fluffy opinions and you often find hard evidence of personal dissatisfaction with the NHS, alongside the many heart-warming stories. Few want to get rid of it, but the idea it is universally worshipped is nonsense.
It is a bit like the monarchy, in many ways. It is ours and it is time honoured so we cling to it, but ask the average person more deeply, and you will find many who demur
The reason that BoZo put £350 000 000 per week for the NHS on the side of the bus is that they knew it played well with older Brexiteers.
Now they have to deliver, whether you like it or not.
I thought we'd been spending £350 million a day on it for the last year! Promise made, promise exceeded by an order of magnitude...
Politico.com - With No Votes to Spare, Biden Gets a Win Obama and Clinton Would Have Envied Even with all the compromises—and the agita on the left—the Covid relief bill may be just what the Democrats needed to deliver.
What's strange about this, is we know that they will u-turn on it, so why do it?
One - sometimes a backlash might not be as significant as predicted, so you might be able to get away with the lowball offer.
Two - if they had started at, say, 3% they'd have faced the same kind of backlash, so either no credit for starting at where they might end up u-turning to, and indeed they might be able to keep the u-turn to lower than if they'd started with a higher offer.
Thanks @kle4 & @Big_G_NorthWales - I haven't been following this. This makes more sense.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Parent and still a republican here.
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
NHS story, is another drip. The kind of thing that over a long period builds up something of a picture
Eh, it's hard to tell it apart from any number of a thousand NHS drip stories over the last 11 years. When is the bucket going to overflow? It's like with the 'winter crisis' NHS stories we get every year (apart from this year, for the obvious reason they've been in crisis all year), I'm just totally numb to it.
Intellectually, stories about the NHS getting a bad hand out or some major problem down to funding or reorganisation or whatever I still get, but they just don't resonate with me - the impression I have after 16 years as an adult is that the NHS is always on the verge of collapse, saying they are pernment can or will do anything about it.
Now I know they cannot be right, and that there will have been peaks and troughs throughout it, but I just cannot emotionally connect with NHS stories. I know that's unfair, and I also try to put aside the awful customer service I've had any time I've had to interact with the NHS, but it is what it is.
For all I know the normal view of the institution is quite different, much more positive, I do wonder if national treasure or not exhaustion sets in.
Very true. Support for the NHS is virtue signalling for the masses. Easier than complex, weird things like BLM or trans rights.
Nurses are good! Not dying is good! Hooray for medicines! Let doctors do their precious, life-saving work!
Who is going to dis-a-fucking-gree? No one
Drill down into these fluffy opinions and you often find hard evidence of personal dissatisfaction with the NHS, alongside the many heart-warming stories. Few want to get rid of it, but the idea it is universally worshipped is nonsense.
It is a bit like the monarchy, in many ways. It is ours and it is time honoured so we cling to it, but ask the average person more deeply, and you will find many who demur
The reason that BoZo put £350 000 000 per week for the NHS on the side of the bus is that they knew it played well with older Brexiteers.
Now they have to deliver, whether you like it or not.
NHS story, is another drip. The kind of thing that over a long period builds up something of a picture
Eh, it's hard to tell it apart from any number of a thousand NHS drip stories over the last 11 years. When is the bucket going to overflow? It's like with the 'winter crisis' NHS stories we get every year (apart from this year, for the obvious reason they've been in crisis all year), I'm just totally numb to it.
Intellectually, stories about the NHS getting a bad hand out or some major problem down to funding or reorganisation or whatever I still get, but they just don't resonate with me - the impression I have after 16 years as an adult is that the NHS is always on the verge of collapse, saying they are pernment can or will do anything about it.
Now I know they cannot be right, and that there will have been peaks and troughs throughout it, but I just cannot emotionally connect with NHS stories. I know that's unfair, and I also try to put aside the awful customer service I've had any time I've had to interact with the NHS, but it is what it is.
For all I know the normal view of the institution is quite different, much more positive, I do wonder if national treasure or not exhaustion sets in.
Very true. Support for the NHS is virtue signalling for the masses. Easier than complex, weird things like BLM or trans rights.
Nurses are good! Not dying is good! Hooray for medicines! Let doctors do their precious, life-saving work!
Who is going to dis-a-fucking-gree? No one
Drill down into these fluffy opinions and you often find hard evidence of personal dissatisfaction with the NHS, alongside the many heart-warming stories. Few want to get rid of it, but the idea it is universally worshipped is nonsense.
It is a bit like the monarchy, in many ways. It is ours and it is time honoured so we cling to it, but ask the average person more deeply, and you will find many who demur
I think Foxy is right about delivering for the NHS in some way still being seen to be key, electorally, but I do think the comparison with the monarchy is a good one (though not to the same degree, as the NHS likely commands wider support) in that many people express general support, but are more apathetic or nuanced if directly asked in person about how it relates to them.
My knowledge of German politics is limited to say the least; however, why would the Greens agree to become junior partners in a centre-right led coalition, rather than taking over as the main opposition and watching whilst the SPD is further squeezed?
Because the SPD have had enough. Why would they want to continue. Particularly with someone less towering than Merkel when they could criticise from the left?
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
There's a big difference between how age affects economics and social attitudes.
Economics changes as people grow up and become more economically dry.
Social attitudes is the opposite. Newer generations evolve and push the envelope on social attitudes but keep those with them when they grow up, only to find younger generations have pushed the envelope further past where they'd imagined.
That is not entirely true, over 65s are far more supportive of the monarchy than slashing tax for the rich or further austerity for example
What's strange about this, is we know that they will u-turn on it, so why do it?
One - sometimes a backlash might not be as significant as predicted, so you might be able to get away with the lowball offer.
Two - if they had started at, say, 3% they'd have faced the same kind of backlash, so either no credit for starting at where they might end up u-turning to, and indeed they might be able to keep the u-turn to lower than if they'd started with a higher offer.
Thanks kle4 & Big_G_NorthWales - I haven't been following this. This makes more sense.
I hasten to add it is a complete guess, and based on some past instances it is quite possible they just never saw a problem coming, and even when they know they need to switch they dig in for far too long. I'm assuming strategy where there may be none. But it's what I would do, in the same way there's no way Unions actually expect to get their first demand through.
By the way, on the Scottish independence front - there's a thread of opinion that Sturgeon is a liability for the SNP now. But I think importantly there's also a thread of opinion that the SNP are becoming a liability for independence as well.
I'm not in any way claiming it is a dominant opinion, but the Salmond-Sturgeon thing is just one bullet point in a longer list of complaints of an increasingly vocal set of online voices.
In a way it's depressing as a Yes voter but I always thought one issue with the SNP gradualism of the past few years was that it would basically fracture the whole broad church thing.
As it turns out, they're reasonably successfully doing that and then also compounding that with a wider set of poo-on-a-stick nonsense.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Parent and still a republican here.
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Of course there are exceptions.
But I have seen this evolution happen to ALL my firebrand lefty friends. Total republicans at the age of 20, 25 (and commies, some of them), they often became kinda soft left Blairites in their 30s - and many remain on the Left. Not one of them would now campaign to abolish the monarchy. For the apathetic it is just an arse-ache - why bother, what do we gain? For the more thoughtful they see it as a destabilising change, and they are seriously averse
I do not know one active republican - as in someone for whom this is a real issue - and I have many friends with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. It is not going to happen
A divide has formed among Democrats over an issue of high sensitivity in New York and Florida: Puerto Rico statehood.
Democratic Rep. Darren Soto, Florida’s first congressman of Puerto Rican descent, is accusing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of reversing his stance on statehood for the island out of fear of political fallout in New York. This comes as liberal firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.N.Y.) is pressing her own measure that urges “self-determination” for Puerto Rico.
Schumer is “trying to appease politics at home,” said Soto, who last week reintroduced a House proposal, H.R. 1522 (117), for Puerto Rico statehood. “I'm just ready to fight. I'm not frustrated."
Florida and New York are both home to sizable populations of Puerto Ricans — Florida is home to one of the largest concentrations of Puerto Ricans living in the continental United States — and they have played an ever-growing role in the politics, especially in the central Florida region. Statehood is also an issue that could create division between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2022.
In November, 52.5 percent of voters in Puerto Rico backed statehood in a referendum. Afterwards, Schumer, who previously endorsed statehood, said there wasn’t strong enough support to go forward with a statehood bill. He later said during a community meeting in New York City that “I will not support their pro-statehood bill until they straighten things out,” reported the Puerto Rican daily newspaper El Nuevo Dia. He said the referendum also could turn the island into a tax haven for billionaires.
“He had very positive language about it during the election,” Soto said of Schumer in an interview with POLITICO. “It was right after Joe Biden said his personal opinion was that Puerto Rico should be a state when he was in our district. So it’s a flip-flop.”
Schumer’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
While Soto is pressing for a statehood bill, Ocasio-Cortez has instead backed legislation that pushes the Puerto Rico Legislature to create a convention whose delegates “develop a long-term solution for Puerto Rico’s status, be that statehood, independence, free association or any option other than the current territorial arrangement.” . . .
Addendum - Note that Puerto Rican statehood is an issue that very few Americans care about, except of course those of Puertoricano heritage AND for politicos in Florida and New York which are the two states with significant PR communities & voters.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
Probably not. The key is whether they become deeply opposed to Charles and Will - the institution can get by just fine with apathy, for quite a while at least (see any number of places where it is still the monarchy, seemingly as no ons is bothered to change it while HMQ is alive).
Highly unlikely, even with 18 to 24s William has a net favourability rating of +26% to Meghan's +20%.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
There's a big difference between how age affects economics and social attitudes.
Economics changes as people grow up and become more economically dry.
Social attitudes is the opposite. Newer generations evolve and push the envelope on social attitudes but keep those with them when they grow up, only to find younger generations have pushed the envelope further past where they'd imagined.
That is not entirely true, over 65s are far more supportive of the monarchy than slashing tax for the rich or further austerity for example
The question is not how those over 65s compare to today's 18 to 30s, but rather how those over 65s compare to their younger selves when they were 18 to 30.
Today's over 65s will be much more economically right wing than they were when they were young, but not dramatically more socially conservative on the same issues than they were when they were young.
How many of those over 65s were republicans 40 plus years ago?
By the way, on the Scottish independence front - there's a thread of opinion that Sturgeon is a liability for the SNP now. But I think importantly there's also a thread of opinion that the SNP are becoming a liability for independence as well.
I'm not in any way claiming it is a dominant opinion, but the Salmond-Sturgeon thing is just one bullet point in a longer list of complaints of an increasingly vocal set of online voices.
In a way it's depressing as a Yes voter but I always thought one issue with the SNP gradualism of the past few years was that it would basically fracture the whole broad church thing.
As it turns out, they're reasonably successfully doing that and then also compounding that with a wider set of poo-on-a-stick nonsense.
That thread of opinion is right. Sturgeon is shopworn. The SNP is VERY shopworn. You cannot keep repackaging the same shit in glittery new YES ribbons, and hoping people will buy it, just because of the ribbons. It is the same shit
The YES movement needs new leaders. Sturgeon, in particular, is boringly ever-present and in danger of being counter-productive
Utterly devastating for Sturgeon, before Christmas Yes was nearly up to 60%, now it is under 50%.
She faces May 2017 style humiliation in May if the SNP fail to get a majority, Boris will brush her off and any indyref2 demands and Salmond will prepare his final revenge to finish her off
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
Slate's lead article is about the Royal family's "attacks" on Meghan.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Parent and still a republican here.
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Of course there are exceptions.
But I have seen this evolution happen to ALL my firebrand lefty friends. Total republicans at the age of 20, 25 (and commies, some of them), they often became kinda soft left Blairites in their 30s - and many remain on the Left. Not one of them would now campaign to abolish the monarchy. For the apathetic it is just an arse-ache - why bother, what do we gain? For the more thoughtful they see it as a destabilising change, and they are seriously averse
I do not know one active republican - as in someone for whom this is a real issue - and I have many friends with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. It is not going to happen
I think it is one of those things where any change will happen suddenly, and attitudes shift rapidly.
Monarchy is, deep down, a bit of a silly system in the modern age, but in our cobbled together system works just fine. But the genius of the Queen in being incredibly bland and careful, a cipher, can be undone pretty quickly if some future royal messes up. It's like when people point to potential of a monarch doing X against wishes of parliament - if that happened now, it'd be sorted pretty darn quick, as a line would have been crossed. And there are many lines.
So it could endure for centuries, or end in 10 years. The latter is not at all likely in my opinion, but the family must be disciplined.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term. It is closer than the Daily Mail or Piers Morgan would have you believe.
"When it comes to the dispute between the Royal Family and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan), with whom do your sympathies mostly lie?
The Queen and members of the Royal Family
All: 38% 18-24:16% 25-49: 27% 50-65: 45% 65+: 60%
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan)
All: 18% 18-24: 40% 25-49: 23% 50-65: 11% 65+: 8%
Drops off a cliff for the over 25s though, including many of Harry's contemporaries in their late 30s.
I'm not worried.
27% / 23% in the 25-49 age, so adding in the 18-24's would probably make it an even divide in the under 50's. It doesn't "drop off a cliff" until 50 at least...
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Parent and still a republican here.
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Of course there are exceptions.
But I have seen this evolution happen to ALL my firebrand lefty friends. Total republicans at the age of 20, 25 (and commies, some of them), they often became kinda soft left Blairites in their 30s - and many remain on the Left. Not one of them would now campaign to abolish the monarchy. For the apathetic it is just an arse-ache - why bother, what do we gain? For the more thoughtful they see it as a destabilising change, and they are seriously averse
I do not know one active republican - as in someone for whom this is a real issue - and I have many friends with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. It is not going to happen
Wait till Queenie dies. A few years with Charles or his sons in charge and views will evolve.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
There's a big difference between how age affects economics and social attitudes.
Economics changes as people grow up and become more economically dry.
Social attitudes is the opposite. Newer generations evolve and push the envelope on social attitudes but keep those with them when they grow up, only to find younger generations have pushed the envelope further past where they'd imagined.
That is not entirely true, over 65s are far more supportive of the monarchy than slashing tax for the rich or further austerity for example
The question is not how those over 65s compare to today's 18 to 30s, but rather how those over 65s compare to their younger selves when they were 18 to 30.
Today's over 65s will be much more economically right wing than they were when they were young, but not dramatically more socially conservative on the same issues than they were when they were young.
How many of those over 65s were republicans 40 plus years ago?
Very few, indeed 57% of even 18 to 24s still back the monarchy.
Supporting the monarchy and paying nurses more are almost the only issues all ages agree on
Utterly devastating for Sturgeon, before Christmas Yes was nearly up to 60%, now it is under 50%.
She faces May 2017 style humiliation in May if the SNP fail to get a majority, Boris will brush her off and any indyref2 demands and Salmond will prepare his final revenge to finish her off
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Er, quite obviously not! There are several on this board over 40 and not monarchists.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
There's a big difference between how age affects economics and social attitudes.
Economics changes as people grow up and become more economically dry.
Social attitudes is the opposite. Newer generations evolve and push the envelope on social attitudes but keep those with them when they grow up, only to find younger generations have pushed the envelope further past where they'd imagined.
That is not entirely true, over 65s are far more supportive of the monarchy than slashing tax for the rich or further austerity for example
The question is not how those over 65s compare to today's 18 to 30s, but rather how those over 65s compare to their younger selves when they were 18 to 30.
Today's over 65s will be much more economically right wing than they were when they were young, but not dramatically more socially conservative on the same issues than they were when they were young.
How many of those over 65s were republicans 40 plus years ago?
Very few, indeed 57% of even 18 to 24s still back the monarchy.
Supporting the monarchy and paying nurses more are almost the only issues all ages agree on
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Parent and still a republican here.
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Of course there are exceptions.
But I have seen this evolution happen to ALL my firebrand lefty friends. Total republicans at the age of 20, 25 (and commies, some of them), they often became kinda soft left Blairites in their 30s - and many remain on the Left. Not one of them would now campaign to abolish the monarchy. For the apathetic it is just an arse-ache - why bother, what do we gain? For the more thoughtful they see it as a destabilising change, and they are seriously averse
I do not know one active republican - as in someone for whom this is a real issue - and I have many friends with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. It is not going to happen
Wait till Queenie dies. A few years with Charles or his sons in charge and views will evolve.
Charles now has a rating of +24%, higher than Boris and Starmer for instance.
William remains hugely popular at +65%, not far off the Queen's +71%
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Parent and still a republican here.
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Of course there are exceptions.
But I have seen this evolution happen to ALL my firebrand lefty friends. Total republicans at the age of 20, 25 (and commies, some of them), they often became kinda soft left Blairites in their 30s - and many remain on the Left. Not one of them would now campaign to abolish the monarchy. For the apathetic it is just an arse-ache - why bother, what do we gain? For the more thoughtful they see it as a destabilising change, and they are seriously averse
I do not know one active republican - as in someone for whom this is a real issue - and I have many friends with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. It is not going to happen
Wait till Queenie dies. A few years with Charles or his sons in charge and views will evolve.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Parent and still a republican here.
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Of course there are exceptions.
But I have seen this evolution happen to ALL my firebrand lefty friends. Total republicans at the age of 20, 25 (and commies, some of them), they often became kinda soft left Blairites in their 30s - and many remain on the Left. Not one of them would now campaign to abolish the monarchy. For the apathetic it is just an arse-ache - why bother, what do we gain? For the more thoughtful they see it as a destabilising change, and they are seriously averse
I do not know one active republican - as in someone for whom this is a real issue - and I have many friends with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. It is not going to happen
Wait till Queenie dies. A few years with Charles or his sons in charge and views will evolve.
There'll probably be a shot in the arm for republicanism. Several of the places that have talked about getting rid of the monarchy yet have unaccountably not yet done so a la Jamaica will do it. Australia will probably revisit the question but not take any action yet. Some more mainstream MPs in the UK, even a few Tories, will ponder if it is time.
But Charles and Will have trained for this their whole lives. Charles's opinions are well known, but he surely knows not to push it as King, and Will is the royally bland image of his grandmother.
So in the UK there might be some rocking, but I think the institution is well set up for long term survivability.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Possibly. Or it may be that Harry and Meghan are far more in tune with the times.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
There's a big difference between how age affects economics and social attitudes.
Economics changes as people grow up and become more economically dry.
Social attitudes is the opposite. Newer generations evolve and push the envelope on social attitudes but keep those with them when they grow up, only to find younger generations have pushed the envelope further past where they'd imagined.
That is not entirely true, over 65s are far more supportive of the monarchy than slashing tax for the rich or further austerity for example
The question is not how those over 65s compare to today's 18 to 30s, but rather how those over 65s compare to their younger selves when they were 18 to 30.
Today's over 65s will be much more economically right wing than they were when they were young, but not dramatically more socially conservative on the same issues than they were when they were young.
How many of those over 65s were republicans 40 plus years ago?
Very few, indeed 57% of even 18 to 24s still back the monarchy.
Supporting the monarchy and paying nurses more are almost the only issues all ages agree on
That wasn't the question. 2018 was not 40 plus years ago.
Have a look at opinion polls 40, 50 or even 60 years ago and compare the youths of then to the elderly of today.
All ages support the monarchy which remains as strongly supported as ever, bar 1992 or 1997 after Diana's death when it took a dip.
Views on homosexuality and abortion may have changed, not the monarchy.
It is also not an automatic you get more socially conservative as you age, Le Pen's strongest support for instance comes from the middle aged rather than the elderly
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Parent and still a republican here.
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Of course there are exceptions.
But I have seen this evolution happen to ALL my firebrand lefty friends. Total republicans at the age of 20, 25 (and commies, some of them), they often became kinda soft left Blairites in their 30s - and many remain on the Left. Not one of them would now campaign to abolish the monarchy. For the apathetic it is just an arse-ache - why bother, what do we gain? For the more thoughtful they see it as a destabilising change, and they are seriously averse
I do not know one active republican - as in someone for whom this is a real issue - and I have many friends with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. It is not going to happen
Wait till Queenie dies. A few years with Charles or his sons in charge and views will evolve.
They don't tho. Thailand is enduring the Worst King in its History. He spent Thailand's painful lockdown with 20 mistresses in a manor in Bavaria. He made his pet dog Fufu an Air Marshall
Yet the Thai monarchy endures, and the people grit their teeth, because they know monarchy is better. Because they can see the fate of the republics around them after WW2 - Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos - which collapsed into communism and war, whereas Thailand remained relatively free, and much much more peaceful and prosperous. The Thais know a better monarch will come along, so they wait, and they tolerate this ridiculous oaf, with some mild protest.
UK PBers may be interested to know, that yesterday's USA "Daily Mail" tabloid TV show, featured a Brit journo contrasting the hypocrisy of the Palace, in attacking Meghan freely but saying NOTHING critical re: His Foul Lowness aka Prince Andrew.
Hypocrisy was HIS word, but reckon it is apt.
It's a fair point, as clearly they are leaking against her, though it seems to be what Harry and Meghan want as it seems like they don't get much airtime except on these issues, so feels like if we could get them all to just post allegations against each other on a private message board and pretend everyone else was reading it, everyone would be happy.
If the Palace had any sense they would shut up. They only stir up the story. It would be better for them to ignore it all.
Indeed. Harry and Meghan's popularity has, I believe, gotten worse, and if they had some smoking gun about the palace I feel like they'd have mentioned it before now (else it cannot be very important), so it is surely mostly petty stuff or general pointing out the weirdness of modern royalty and its demands on those within it. That'll get attention, sure, but unless it turns out the Queen slaps servants or something it'll fade, so no need to leak stories to retaliate.
No, H and M are more popular than last year. There is a sharp age divide too with the under 24s favouring H and M over HM, and it being pretty even with the under 40s. It is only the oldies that are anti Meghan.
It is going up, rather than collapsing, and if you click the link, have a look at the age divide.
Maybe, maybe not, but it is hardly a matter of concern to most people
That Yougov doesn't bode well for the Palace in the long term.
Isn't that analagous to the 'Tories won't win in the future because the young are all Labour supporters' argument?
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
Everyone becomes a monarchist by the time they are 40, or when they become a parent. You realise that the Crown is a great source of stability, for all its flaws - and stability, at that stage in life, is vastly more appealing than revolution. You want to know what kind of world your kids will inherit. You want to know they will grow up in a nation you can recognise: peaceful, lawful, abiding, British.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of Foxy have left this world, RIP
Er, quite obviously not! There are several on this board over 40 and not monarchists.
I don't think anyone takes a statement like 'Everyone X' literally. There's always outliers. Everyone always talks about older people being much more likely to be Tory, but the existence of Jeremy Corbyn doesn't disprove the general point.
As it is, I think if he'd said 60 it might have been more likely.
A divide has formed among Democrats over an issue of high sensitivity in New York and Florida: Puerto Rico statehood.
Democratic Rep. Darren Soto, Florida’s first congressman of Puerto Rican descent, is accusing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of reversing his stance on statehood for the island out of fear of political fallout in New York. This comes as liberal firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.N.Y.) is pressing her own measure that urges “self-determination” for Puerto Rico.
Schumer is “trying to appease politics at home,” said Soto, who last week reintroduced a House proposal, H.R. 1522 (117), for Puerto Rico statehood. “I'm just ready to fight. I'm not frustrated."
Florida and New York are both home to sizable populations of Puerto Ricans — Florida is home to one of the largest concentrations of Puerto Ricans living in the continental United States — and they have played an ever-growing role in the politics, especially in the central Florida region. Statehood is also an issue that could create division between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2022.
In November, 52.5 percent of voters in Puerto Rico backed statehood in a referendum. Afterwards, Schumer, who previously endorsed statehood, said there wasn’t strong enough support to go forward with a statehood bill. He later said during a community meeting in New York City that “I will not support their pro-statehood bill until they straighten things out,” reported the Puerto Rican daily newspaper El Nuevo Dia. He said the referendum also could turn the island into a tax haven for billionaires.
“He had very positive language about it during the election,” Soto said of Schumer in an interview with POLITICO. “It was right after Joe Biden said his personal opinion was that Puerto Rico should be a state when he was in our district. So it’s a flip-flop.”
Schumer’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
While Soto is pressing for a statehood bill, Ocasio-Cortez has instead backed legislation that pushes the Puerto Rico Legislature to create a convention whose delegates “develop a long-term solution for Puerto Rico’s status, be that statehood, independence, free association or any option other than the current territorial arrangement.” . . .
Addendum - Note that Puerto Rican statehood is an issue that very few Americans care about, except of course those of Puertoricano heritage AND for politicos in Florida and New York which are the two states with significant PR communities & voters.
Interesting stuff. I appreciate it is a complex issue, notwithstanding this vote on statehood was more direct than past ones, but Schumer's position seems...weak.
Despite still being a republican I think HMQ has survived long enough that its made it far more unlikely that we'll become a republic in my lifetime.
Quite simply HMQ has been a good monarch, Charles does not seem at all suitable to be king, but William does. Under a monarchy though you don't get to choose who the monarch is though.
Had the Queen passed away in the 90s and Charles had become king decades ago I think that we'd have had a much better shot of getting rid of the monarchy. But with the Queen ruling as well and as long as she has by the time she does fade into the history books Charles will already be an old man himself.
Charles already is an old man today. Even if he became king tomorrow, people would already be looking past him now, not thinking there'd be a lifetime of Charles in charge.
Comments
Remember the nursing Union is asking for a 12 %rise
Or - as my plumber suggests - may may not vote at all. He doesn't trust anything Sturgeon or Salmond says. But doesn't think the other parties are any different never mind better...
See I've had this debate so many times and I know the tracks it follows.
But go ahead and surprise me.
Two - if they had started at, say, 3% they'd have faced the same kind of backlash, so either no credit for starting at where they might end up u-turning to, and indeed they might be able to keep the u-turn to lower than if they'd started with a higher offer.
Naah - doesn't work coming from someone with a planet-sized ego. Its in his interests to have tthe SNP falter, Sturgeon and her clique removed, and then he and his step back in.
* of was it Dewar?
The Salmond Inquiry has made 35% of Scots less likely to back independence.
Yet 16% are MORE likely to back it.
If they'd offered 2%. or 3%, the reaction would have been exactly the same. So why bother offering more?
Intellectually, stories about the NHS getting a bad hand out or some major problem down to funding or reorganisation or whatever I still get, but they just don't resonate with me - the impression I have after 16 years as an adult is that the NHS is always on the verge of collapse, saying they are poorly treated and paid, and no government can or will do anything about it.
Now I know they cannot be right, and that there will have been peaks and troughs throughout it, but I just cannot emotionally connect with NHS stories. I know that's unfair, and I also try to put aside the awful customer service I've had any time I've had to interact with the NHS, but it is what it is.
For all I know the normal view of the institution is quite different, much more positive, I do wonder if national treasure or not exhaustion sets in.
"When it comes to the dispute between the Royal Family and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan), with whom do your sympathies mostly lie?
The Queen and members of the Royal Family
All: 38%
18-24:16%
25-49: 27%
50-65: 45%
65+: 60%
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex (Harry and Meghan)
All: 18%
18-24: 40%
25-49: 23%
50-65: 11%
65+: 8%
Remember what Google Translate could do 10, even 5 years ago. Exactly
If you've given someone a first shot, they've got *some* antibodies. You could give them a second shot after three weeks and top them up. Or you could give someone else first shot. The second approach a) protects two people sub-optimally rather than one person optimally, and more importantly b) there are now two people through whom the virus is unlikely to spread, so the third, fourth and fifth people do not get it.
Meanwhile, the first person is still subject to all the tedious lockdown restrictions; he can't go out celebrating his newfound immunity even if he wanted to.
I haven't done the modelling myself! But to me the approach makes sense.
He could give Alex Salmond as much time as he wanted to explain his position.
Clearly those younger citizens are much more favourable toward the younger, disaffected royals, but if I had to guess I'd assume younger people had generally been less positive toward the royals as an institution anyway (albeit probably not as much).
I expect Charles and Camilla will succeed but frankly I expect a toned down version of the Royal Family at that point
With many more revelations to come, right up to the election, it is now highly possible the Nats will not get their majority
Well played, MI5, well played
It would be interesting to do the maths on whether it is better to do second jabs on 80 year olds over first jabs on 50 year olds.
They get a piece delivered each month.
There's no danger of him losing, so why not indulge in a first vote?
In the wake of his £65 billion raid on household incomes and company profits in Wednesday’s Budget, the Chancellor is preparing to set out plans on March 23, which is being called ‘tax day’, to fill the £407 billion hole left by the pandemic.
Among the options is an ‘online sales tax’ targeting the explosion in internet shopping triggered by the crisis, which has benefited companies such as Amazon at the expense of traditional high street stores.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9333805/Rishi-Sunak-targeting-Big-Tech-sales-tax-looks-balance-books.html
The political smart thing would have been to announce this at the same time as promising nurses a pay rise.
One wonders if the chinless wonders at the Palace have deliberately - or is it unwittingly - sabotaged QEII's ongoing effort to prepare the House of Windor-Etc, Etc. for the rigors of the mid-21st century, when she will no longer be around to mind the Firm?
.
BTW, poll subsamples show zero gender gap on issue Megan & Harry versus Queen & rest of Royal Family, and not much difference between middle & lower class voters.
However, it does show that Tories, southern Englanders and geezers.
I'm not worried.
Nurses are good! Not dying is good! Hooray for medicines! Let doctors do their precious, life-saving work!
Who is going to dis-a-fucking-gree? No one
Drill down into these fluffy opinions and you often find hard evidence of personal dissatisfaction with the NHS, alongside the many heart-warming stories. Few want to get rid of it, but the idea it is universally worshipped is nonsense.
It is a bit like the monarchy, in many ways. It is ours and it is time honoured so we cling to it, but ask the average person more deeply, and you will find many who demur
The institutionalised maladministration of her regime only goes away as a story with her departure.
People historically became more Conservative because they had houses and children. Whether that is true of social attitudes, as opposed to economics, probably not. I wouldn't expect those youngsters (and it is not far off even below age 49) to suddenly become Meghan-phobic Royalists
1) Being a 'working' royal is a weird, constricting existence, preventing you from doing or saying what you want but providing wealth and attention.
2) Harry and Meghan stepped away from that after negotiations with the Palace, but relationships broke down as a result.
3) Both sides have been leaking petty stories about each other in retaliation for the Sussexes being lazy/self obsessed or the Palace being close minded meanies.
It's hard to escape, as royals are big box office, but it all seems to have been rather dull stuff, as if there were explosive claims from either side we'd have heard about it before now, otherwise holding it back would show neither side really cares about it.
Now they have to deliver, whether you like it or not.
I have no idea how this pans out, but it is more uncertain now than before her appearance last Wednesday
Economics changes as people grow up and become more economically dry.
Social attitudes is the opposite. Newer generations evolve and push the envelope on social attitudes but keep those with them when they grow up, only to find younger generations have pushed the envelope further past where they'd imagined.
That's what monarchies, done well, can do. The British Crown has done this for centuries. We have not suffered revolution since the 17th century.
It will be with us centuries after the likes of @Foxy have left this world, RIP
Even with all the compromises—and the agita on the left—the Covid relief bill may be just what the Democrats needed to deliver.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/03/06/with-no-votes-to-spare-biden-gets-a-win-obama-and-clinton-would-have-envied-474022
Will see next year whether turning 40 makes me a monarchist but I'm not holding my breath on that.
Why would they want to continue. Particularly with someone less towering than Merkel when they could criticise from the left?
I'm not in any way claiming it is a dominant opinion, but the Salmond-Sturgeon thing is just one bullet point in a longer list of complaints of an increasingly vocal set of online voices.
In a way it's depressing as a Yes voter but I always thought one issue with the SNP gradualism of the past few years was that it would basically fracture the whole broad church thing.
As it turns out, they're reasonably successfully doing that and then also compounding that with a wider set of poo-on-a-stick nonsense.
But I have seen this evolution happen to ALL my firebrand lefty friends. Total republicans at the age of 20, 25 (and commies, some of them), they often became kinda soft left Blairites in their 30s - and many remain on the Left. Not one of them would now campaign to abolish the monarchy. For the apathetic it is just an arse-ache - why bother, what do we gain? For the more thoughtful they see it as a destabilising change, and they are seriously averse
I do not know one active republican - as in someone for whom this is a real issue - and I have many friends with diverse beliefs and backgrounds. It is not going to happen
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/03/05/democrats-fracture-over-puerto-rico-statehood-1367099
A divide has formed among Democrats over an issue of high sensitivity in New York and Florida: Puerto Rico statehood.
Democratic Rep. Darren Soto, Florida’s first congressman of Puerto Rican descent, is accusing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of reversing his stance on statehood for the island out of fear of political fallout in New York. This comes as liberal firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D.N.Y.) is pressing her own measure that urges “self-determination” for Puerto Rico.
Schumer is “trying to appease politics at home,” said Soto, who last week reintroduced a House proposal, H.R. 1522 (117), for Puerto Rico statehood. “I'm just ready to fight. I'm not frustrated."
Florida and New York are both home to sizable populations of Puerto Ricans — Florida is home to one of the largest concentrations of Puerto Ricans living in the continental United States — and they have played an ever-growing role in the politics, especially in the central Florida region. Statehood is also an issue that could create division between Ocasio-Cortez and Schumer, who is up for reelection in 2022.
In November, 52.5 percent of voters in Puerto Rico backed statehood in a referendum. Afterwards, Schumer, who previously endorsed statehood, said there wasn’t strong enough support to go forward with a statehood bill. He later said during a community meeting in New York City that “I will not support their pro-statehood bill until they straighten things out,” reported the Puerto Rican daily newspaper El Nuevo Dia. He said the referendum also could turn the island into a tax haven for billionaires.
“He had very positive language about it during the election,” Soto said of Schumer in an interview with POLITICO. “It was right after Joe Biden said his personal opinion was that Puerto Rico should be a state when he was in our district. So it’s a flip-flop.”
Schumer’s office did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
While Soto is pressing for a statehood bill, Ocasio-Cortez has instead backed legislation that pushes the Puerto Rico Legislature to create a convention whose delegates “develop a long-term solution for Puerto Rico’s status, be that statehood, independence, free association or any option other than the current territorial arrangement.” . . .
Addendum - Note that Puerto Rican statehood is an issue that very few Americans care about, except of course those of Puertoricano heritage AND for politicos in Florida and New York which are the two states with significant PR communities & voters.
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/u9ldznwln2/YouGov - Royal favourability tracker Oct 2020.pdf
Today's over 65s will be much more economically right wing than they were when they were young, but not dramatically more socially conservative on the same issues than they were when they were young.
How many of those over 65s were republicans 40 plus years ago?
The YES movement needs new leaders. Sturgeon, in particular, is boringly ever-present and in danger of being counter-productive
She faces May 2017 style humiliation in May if the SNP fail to get a majority, Boris will brush her off and any indyref2 demands and Salmond will prepare his final revenge to finish her off
Monarchy is, deep down, a bit of a silly system in the modern age, but in our cobbled together system works just fine. But the genius of the Queen in being incredibly bland and careful, a cipher, can be undone pretty quickly if some future royal messes up. It's like when people point to potential of a monarch doing X against wishes of parliament - if that happened now, it'd be sorted pretty darn quick, as a line would have been crossed. And there are many lines.
So it could endure for centuries, or end in 10 years. The latter is not at all likely in my opinion, but the family must be disciplined.
Supporting the monarchy and paying nurses more are almost the only issues all ages agree on
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists
Have a look at opinion polls 40, 50 or even 60 years ago and compare the youths of then to the elderly of today.
William remains hugely popular at +65%, not far off the Queen's +71%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/entertainment/articles-reports/2020/10/28/royal-popularity-harry-and-meghan-drop
But Charles and Will have trained for this their whole lives. Charles's opinions are well known, but he surely knows not to push it as King, and Will is the royally bland image of his grandmother.
So in the UK there might be some rocking, but I think the institution is well set up for long term survivability.
Views on homosexuality and abortion may have changed, not the monarchy.
It is also not an automatic you get more socially conservative as you age, Le Pen's strongest support for instance comes from the middle aged rather than the elderly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fufu_(dog)
He is like a Siamese Caligula
Yet the Thai monarchy endures, and the people grit their teeth, because they know monarchy is better. Because they can see the fate of the republics around them after WW2 - Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos - which collapsed into communism and war, whereas Thailand remained relatively free, and much much more peaceful and prosperous. The Thais know a better monarch will come along, so they wait, and they tolerate this ridiculous oaf, with some mild protest.
As it is, I think if he'd said 60 it might have been more likely.
Quite simply HMQ has been a good monarch, Charles does not seem at all suitable to be king, but William does. Under a monarchy though you don't get to choose who the monarch is though.
Had the Queen passed away in the 90s and Charles had become king decades ago I think that we'd have had a much better shot of getting rid of the monarchy. But with the Queen ruling as well and as long as she has by the time she does fade into the history books Charles will already be an old man himself.
Charles already is an old man today. Even if he became king tomorrow, people would already be looking past him now, not thinking there'd be a lifetime of Charles in charge.