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%
Yeah, base values when nobody is seriously pushing republicanism. In a few decades time, who knows?
It's certainly true that who knows in the future, I wouldn't bet on things being as stable for the monarchy forever, and that's a good thing, a system needs to continually prove itself.
But I think 'base values when nobody is seriously pushing republicanism' is an odd turn of phrase. Surely that no one is seriously pushing it is kind of the point? It might not pan out, but if the actual heirs are popular then no one will seriously push it either. So while HYUFD's certainty may not be bourne out, pointing out the popularity is also not irrelevant, since it may forestall people pushing republicanism.
Agreed. William seems to be taking after his grandmother more than his dad or uncle which makes the monarchy far more secure.
Who knows, maybe George will turn out like Andrew or Charles and put the issue back on the agenda?
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%
Yeah, base values when nobody is seriously pushing republicanism. In a few decades time, who knows?
It's certainly true that who knows in the future, I wouldn't bet on things being as stable for the monarchy forever, and that's a good thing, a system needs to continually prove itself.
But I think 'base values when nobody is seriously pushing republicanism' is an odd turn of phrase. Surely that no one is seriously pushing it is kind of the point? It might not pan out, but if the actual heirs are popular then no one will seriously push it either. So while HYUFD's certainty may not be bourne out, pointing out the popularity is also not irrelevant, since it may forestall people pushing republicanism.
Agreed. William seems to be taking after his grandmother more than his dad or uncle which makes the monarchy far more secure.
Who knows, maybe George will turn out like Andrew or Charles and put the issue back on the agenda?
Charles has a solid approval rating, if George turned out like Andrew he would likely have to abdicate in favour of his eldest child or Charlotte but by then we will all be dead anyway
Note - it says working class - step away from the smelling salts
Surely working class giving 52% (and a 25% lead) for the Tories should be a reason to grab for the smelling salts?
The Labour party's loss of the working classes is incredible.
It really isn't incredible. Labour has despised the working classes, with increasing vigour, for the last 20 years. And it only gets worse. The problem is, this truth is finally sinking in - with the working classes. Even as Labour becomes ever more etiolated and effete and metropolitan.
Boris looks like he genuinely loves Britain, is fond of the Queen, likes a drink, and is proud to be a bit of a twat: ah well, he'll do, at least he's not ashamed of who he is, or what we are, etc.
The issue for Starmer, I feel, is that he has correctly identified the problem, but he is not, personally, the cure
It is now possible Labour in England could suffer a collapse as bad as Labour in Scotland, when they are finally abandoned by all their working class voters.
Why vote Labour, when they clearly hate your country, hate you, hate the Queen, hate white people, hate heterosexuals, and so on? Why vote Labour, when the Tories are offering similar policies, but the Tories, unlike Labour. apparently like you, and want your vote, and the Tories love our country, they like the Queen, they are not ashamed of being white, are not obsessed with trans madness, and so on?
This is now existential stuff for Labour. They could be reduced to 20-25% of metropolitan graduates who Have Never Kissed A Toryyyyyy
IDK, I just cannot accept the idea that the Tories, through dint of reinvention and dearth of opposition, will be able to by default become the equivalent of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (not to be confused with the old Democratic Liberal Party, the Liberal Party, the Democratic Party, or a different, later Liberal Party).
Without being all Corbynista, 2017 ended up being closer than expected, and if that is possible then a new day will dawn for Labour, or someone.
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%
Yeah, base values when nobody is seriously pushing republicanism. In a few decades time, who knows?
It's certainly true that who knows in the future, I wouldn't bet on things being as stable for the monarchy forever, and that's a good thing, a system needs to continually prove itself.
But I think 'base values when nobody is seriously pushing republicanism' is an odd turn of phrase. Surely that no one is seriously pushing it is kind of the point? It might not pan out, but if the actual heirs are popular then no one will seriously push it either. So while HYUFD's certainty may not be bourne out, pointing out the popularity is also not irrelevant, since it may forestall people pushing republicanism.
Agreed. William seems to be taking after his grandmother more than his dad or uncle which makes the monarchy far more secure.
Who knows, maybe George will turn out like Andrew or Charles and put the issue back on the agenda?
Charles has a solid approval rating, if George turned out like Andrew he would likely have to abdicate but by then we will all be dead anyway
And I bet Catalonia will still be part of Spain then too!
What are the criteria you would use to judge that?
One purpose I have previously been told the monarch should serve is as the ultimate guarantor of our democratic freedoms, the bulwark of last resort against an Enabling Act - but the Supreme Court judgment on prorogation suggests that when she was tested in that area she fluffed it.
That's certainly not what I thought the monarch was for. Indeed, I found it a bit cringeworthy how some intelligent people were pretending that they thought the monarch should have gone against the advice of the PM, ie arguing in favour of a monarch exercising actual power.
My recollection of the situation was that in our system the monarch had no discretion, and the failing was that of the PM for taking the piss and thus advising the monarch terribly about what he was asking for. Certainly the idea the monarch in this day and age should have been expected to throw it back in the PM's face - and I thought he acted terribly regardless of whether it was legal or not - strikes me as very strange indeed, particularly from a republican position. A republican should have been outraged at the idea she could say no, not pretend outrage that she didn't say no.
Edit:And of course that she technically had to be asked is something republicans probably disliked, and that it was a technicality no less annoying. But the 'Oh, the Queen didn't ignore the PM!' theatrics were just embarrassing.
There's good, strong reasons to be a republican, fake ones aren't needed.
The point is that if she cannot perform that role, because she does not have the legitimacy to do so, then we need to have someone with the legitimacy who can.
But do we need the role? There's many systems of democratic government out there, and I'm not sure as many have that 'ultimate guarantor of democratic freedoms' role you think exists. Or if they do, that they are actually an ultimate guarantor.
No system can provide such an ultimate guarantee, even if they have a nicely worded constitution saying otherwise. So I think it approaches the issue from the wrong direction - if you ever need such a role, then counterintuitively the role would not help as demagogues and dictators, if they have the means, would pay it no heed.
The ultimate guarantor has always been the people.
If the people want a demagogue then all bets are off. In any system.
As has been linked to on here in the past, liberals and conservatives even in democratic states today can see the appeal of a strongman leader. Easy to fall away from liberal democracy, it has to be hard fought for.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
The problem in believing in an "ultimate guarantor" is that people put their faith in that and stop being vigilant. They expect the guarantor to do their job, so they don't have to.
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 brings me back to the arguments that were had before GE2010.
I was always certain that northern and midland wwc voters were the route to a Conservative majority.
Though I never expected the likes of Bolsover and Durham NW to go Conservative.
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)
That's a wonderful ambition. I suspect the only way to make it happen would be to ban private education (make the politicians and civil servants* have to use state schools), and then unban it a couple of decades later. In certain other countries private schools are really for the rich but dim.
*I would normally say "ruling class" here, but didn't want to look like I was attacking you personally ;-)
I've been thinking recently that the Terminator films would be duller (but not necessarily much poorer than recent efforts) if in future films Skynet's plan is, rather than sending machines back to kill the leader of the human resistance, they send them back through time so they can publish research in respected academic journals to make it easier for humans to make big advances in AI and therefore bring about Skynet and Judgement Day faster.
Not 100% sure if the concept is blockbuster-worthy, but it'll definitely save on the special effects budget.
Never got round to watching the Terminator films, although I've been to a Terminator attraction at a theme park in the 1990s.
Without Terminator Arnie does not become Governor of California.
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
"'I vaccinated 100 people over a 48-hour shift in Bradford. Every single one of them was white': DR AMIR KHAN delivers a stark illustration of the problems being caused by misinformation on social media"
"'I vaccinated 100 people over a 48-hour shift in Bradford. Every single one of them was white': DR AMIR KHAN delivers a stark illustration of the problems being caused by misinformation on social media"
Note - it says working class - step away from the smelling salts
Surely working class giving 52% (and a 25% lead) for the Tories should be a reason to grab for the smelling salts?
The Labour party's loss of the working classes is incredible.
Kimbala was saying Labour hadn't taken the working class for granted - I begged to differ
Is there any way to compare with when Thatcher was getting her landslide majorities back in the 80s? It was working class votes giving them to her.
The Tories creating Austerity 2.0 this week is excellent news for Labour. Also for Farage/reform - UKIP had a fine time unrelated to EU but due to Osbornes uber budget shambles.
Note - it says working class - step away from the smelling salts
Surely working class giving 52% (and a 25% lead) for the Tories should be a reason to grab for the smelling salts?
The Labour party's loss of the working classes is incredible.
Kimbala was saying Labour hadn't taken the working class for granted - I begged to differ
Is there any way to compare with when Thatcher was getting her landslide majorities back in the 80s? It was working class votes giving them to her.
The Tories creating Austerity 2.0 this week is excellent news for Labour. Also for Farage/reform - UKIP had a fine time unrelated to EU but due to Osbornes uber budget shambles.
Mrs Thatcher was successful in getting working-class votes in places like Basildon, Portsmouth, Harlow, Milton Keynes, Stevenage, etc. She didn't do so well in the northern mining districts.
Note - it says working class - step away from the smelling salts
Surely working class giving 52% (and a 25% lead) for the Tories should be a reason to grab for the smelling salts?
The Labour party's loss of the working classes is incredible.
Kimbala was saying Labour hadn't taken the working class for granted - I begged to differ
Is there any way to compare with when Thatcher was getting her landslide majorities back in the 80s? It was working class votes giving them to her.
The Tories creating Austerity 2.0 this week is excellent news for Labour. Also for Farage/reform - UKIP had a fine time unrelated to EU but due to Osbornes uber budget shambles.
Mrs Thatcher was successful in getting working-class votes in places like Basildon, Portsmouth, Harlow, Milton Keynes, Stevenage, etc. She didn't do so well in the northern mining districts.
There hasn’t been any mining for a while 🙂.
There has been a Brexit, that needs to be delivered as a success.
You may find others begging to differ that Maggie/Major/Heath/particularly MacMillan didn’t scoop good majority of working class support. I won’t, I will go straight for the good news for Labour, it may appear they are in the doom clouds, but there is shaft of light of their certain GE victory here, the Tories are riding a buckeroo dandy they can’t cling on - Austerity 2.0 doesn’t run the same course as the first, 2.0 picks up where 1.0 left off. From the start everyone knows, when it comes to pain, we won’t all be in it together.
Comments
Who knows, maybe George will turn out like Andrew or Charles and put the issue back on the agenda?
Without being all Corbynista, 2017 ended up being closer than expected, and if that is possible then a new day will dawn for Labour, or someone.
Pleasant dreams.
The problem in believing in an "ultimate guarantor" is that people put their faith in that and stop being vigilant. They expect the guarantor to do their job, so they don't have to.
So any demagogue corrupts the guarantor.
I was always certain that northern and midland wwc voters were the route to a Conservative majority.
Though I never expected the likes of Bolsover and Durham NW to go Conservative.
*I would normally say "ruling class" here, but didn't want to look like I was attacking you personally ;-)
So well worth a watch for you.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1368357470159187972?s=21
https://twitter.com/sundaytimessco/status/1368358680157126658?s=21
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-9333875/DR-AMIR-KHAN-vaccinated-100-people-48-hour-shift-Bradford-one-white.html
Just take the jab. If you won’t, it’s your community that will suffer. Pure Darwinism
The Tories creating Austerity 2.0 this week is excellent news for Labour. Also for Farage/reform - UKIP had a fine time unrelated to EU but due to Osbornes uber budget shambles.
There has been a Brexit, that needs to be delivered as a success.
You may find others begging to differ that Maggie/Major/Heath/particularly MacMillan didn’t scoop good majority of working class support. I won’t, I will go straight for the good news for Labour, it may appear they are in the doom clouds, but there is shaft of light of their certain GE victory here, the Tories are riding a buckeroo dandy they can’t cling on - Austerity 2.0 doesn’t run the same course as the first, 2.0 picks up where 1.0 left off. From the start everyone knows, when it comes to pain, we won’t all be in it together.