On the anti-republican question - are there any functions that *require* a "head of state" that couldn't be assigned to either Parliament or Government as appropriate? Can't we just do away with any risk of "President Blair" *and* the constitutional functions of the Monarchy at the same time?
Yes, probably. The nitty gritty always gets complicated though, hence the survival of those monarchies which do keep their heads down as, eh, why bother?
But even if those rumours [Meghan's behaviour] are true, it’s an insignificant skirmish in a war that has already been won. Just look at the Sussexes, sitting with Oprah under a vine-draped pergola, Spotify and Netflix deals in hand, as radiant as the California sun. Meghan hasn’t just escaped back to the States with her prince in tow: she’s tossing a lit match over her shoulder — with an assist from Oprah, no less, who might just be the closest thing the US has to a Queen. Is it all a bit contrived? Without question, from the strategic displays of emotion to the “casual” followup with Meghan and Harry as they tend to their backyard flock of rescue chickens. (“I just love rescuing,” Meghan says, in the second-most loaded moment of the interview.)
But that’s Hollywood, and that’s America — and this is Meghan Markle’s home turf. She knows that what we really love, even more than a traditional fairy tale, is an underdog story that ends with a cry for freedom, a confessional interview, and a few tears. Even if it’s all just made for TV.
She doesn't know what we really love. Most people are glad she has buggered off and she can whine as much as she likes on US TV. No-one really cares. Good riddance.
She is, and is referring to, Americans, not us.
The point remains.. noone really cares... next weeks fish and chip paper. Whilst Megan is making loads of money, the average American is having a really hard time.
Only the Tabloids care and they are not caring for Meghan nor Harry.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
How often is Obama referred to as America's first mixed race Pres.?
Nearly a quarter of a century after Diana's death, I can't believe we're still going through all this bullshit. We are a strange country. The Yanks' interest in this circus doesn't help.
Some like the monarchy because of the circus. I prefer it boring, that's the point of a figurehead institution in my book. One less thing to worry about.
You're of course right about the circus bit. I too would like the nation's figurehead institution to be boring. And elected, preferably.
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
Oh behave.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.
Guys I wrote a whole damn thread so you didn’t have to keep on having this argument!
Nearly a quarter of a century after Diana's death, I can't believe we're still going through all this bullshit. We are a strange country. The Yanks' interest in this circus doesn't help.
Some like the monarchy because of the circus. I prefer it boring, that's the point of a figurehead institution in my book. One less thing to worry about.
You're of course right about the circus bit. I too would like the nation's figurehead institution to be boring. And elected, preferably.
Seems the quickest route to a Labour government would be @HYUFD as returning officer binning half the votes as not real Tory votes.
- Yes, let's replace my definition with his. Labour landslide!
Hardly, given most voters are monarchists and the vast majority of Tories are monarchists, my definition of a Tory would be far more likely to lead to a Tory landslide than an incorrect free market liberal definition of a Tory.
The former can win the Red Wall, the latter can't.
Rental homes have 1 family in them (unless they are housing of multiple occupation which is a different matter).
And how does a rental home with 1 family in it becoming a owner occupied home with 1 family in it change the dynamics of the rental market. Demand for rental housing drops by 1 house, supply of rental housing also drops by 1 house - in a market with x million rental properties the impact is always zero.
No, because the population is constantly evolving with new people being born and growing up to need somewhere to live, and older people dying. If you have a policy that gradually shifts rented accommodation to accommodation for sale, the pool of rented homes for the next cohort shrinks (other things being equal).
The effect can be seen in council housing. The pool of council housing shrinks every year because people exercise their right to buy. In due course, the buyers move on and buy somewhere else, and the property becomes free - but only for people able to buy.
It's possible to argue for this to happen on the grounds that you believe that as many people as possible should own their homes, as you think it makes society more stable or more Conservative-voting or any other worthy or less worthy aim. But it does make life harder for the nearly half of the population who really can't afford to buy or who (like me) don't want to, so even if one thinks it's a good thing the downside should be acknowledged.
It wouldnt be gradually shifting the status quo from rented to owner occupied, it would be stopping the massive shift from owner occupied to rented that has happened in the last 25 years since btl mortgages took off and have become seen as both easy money and the best way to save for a pension (which in turn has a further negative impact on UK investment).
It's not "stopping the massive shift" for two reasons:
1 - We still have a small PRS by comparison. 2 - It stopped back in 2016 in England since when the PRS has been declining as a share of housing stock.
Rental homes have 1 family in them (unless they are housing of multiple occupation which is a different matter).
And how does a rental home with 1 family in it becoming a owner occupied home with 1 family in it change the dynamics of the rental market. Demand for rental housing drops by 1 house, supply of rental housing also drops by 1 house - in a market with x million rental properties the impact is always zero.
No, because the population is constantly evolving with new people being born and growing up to need somewhere to live, and older people dying. If you have a policy that gradually shifts rented accommodation to accommodation for sale, the pool of rented homes for the next cohort shrinks (other things being equal).
The effect can be seen in council housing. The pool of council housing shrinks every year because people exercise their right to buy. In due course, the buyers move on and buy somewhere else, and the property becomes free - but only for people able to buy.
It's possible to argue for this to happen on the grounds that you believe that as many people as possible should own their homes, as you think it makes society more stable or more Conservative-voting or any other worthy or less worthy aim. But it does make life harder for the nearly half of the population who really can't afford to buy or who (like me) don't want to, so even if one thinks it's a good thing the downside should be acknowledged.
It wouldnt be gradually shifting the status quo from rented to owner occupied, it would be stopping the massive shift from owner occupied to rented that has happened in the last 25 years since btl mortgages took off and have become seen as both easy money and the best way to save for a pension (which in turn has a further negative impact on UK investment).
It's not "stopping the massive shift" for two reasons:
1 - We still have a small PRS by comparison. 2 - It stopped back in 2016 in England since when the PRS has been declining as a share of housing stock.
I posted the data on that a few days ago.
Precisely there was a massive shift but Osborne stopped it.
On the anti-republican question - are there any functions that *require* a "head of state" that couldn't be assigned to either Parliament or Government as appropriate? Can't we just do away with any risk of "President Blair" *and* the constitutional functions of the Monarchy at the same time?
It would reduce the separation of powers between executive and legislature even more to make the PM Head of State and Head of Government. In effect he would be titled President anyway.
Saying that a vaccine passport should say which vaccine you got is rather odd. I see no point to that at all.
I agree in an ideal world. I suspect that has been added in case a country decides not to recognise Oxford (for example) and so decides to only recognise a vaccine passport if it specifies an non-Oxford vaccine.
Who knows, maybe we will rule similarly in the case of Russian vaccine??
Rental homes have 1 family in them (unless they are housing of multiple occupation which is a different matter).
And how does a rental home with 1 family in it becoming a owner occupied home with 1 family in it change the dynamics of the rental market. Demand for rental housing drops by 1 house, supply of rental housing also drops by 1 house - in a market with x million rental properties the impact is always zero.
No, because the population is constantly evolving with new people being born and growing up to need somewhere to live, and older people dying. If you have a policy that gradually shifts rented accommodation to accommodation for sale, the pool of rented homes for the next cohort shrinks (other things being equal).
The effect can be seen in council housing. The pool of council housing shrinks every year because people exercise their right to buy. In due course, the buyers move on and buy somewhere else, and the property becomes free - but only for people able to buy.
It's possible to argue for this to happen on the grounds that you believe that as many people as possible should own their homes, as you think it makes society more stable or more Conservative-voting or any other worthy or less worthy aim. But it does make life harder for the nearly half of the population who really can't afford to buy or who (like me) don't want to, so even if one thinks it's a good thing the downside should be acknowledged.
It wouldnt be gradually shifting the status quo from rented to owner occupied, it would be stopping the massive shift from owner occupied to rented that has happened in the last 25 years since btl mortgages took off and have become seen as both easy money and the best way to save for a pension (which in turn has a further negative impact on UK investment).
It's not "stopping the massive shift" for two reasons:
1 - We still have a small PRS by comparison. 2 - It stopped back in 2016 in England since when the PRS has been declining as a share of housing stock.
I posted the data on that a few days ago.
Precisely there was a massive shift but Osborne stopped it.
Osborne deserves credit for acting to at least start to resolve a situation that Tories before him and subsequently have simply fuelled.
During my time as a councillor in London, on average every two and three days a house in my ward moved from owner occupied to private rented, for a decade.
Saying that a vaccine passport should say which vaccine you got is rather odd. I see no point to that at all.
I agree in an ideal world. I suspect that has been added in case a country decides not to recognise Oxford (for example) and so decides to only recognise a vaccine passport if it specifies an non-Oxford vaccine.
Who knows, maybe we will rule similarly in the case of Russian vaccine??
That's precisely why it should not be done. We shouldn't be encouraging that.
Simply say that people have been vaccinated. If countries want vaccinated British tourists they'll need to acccept that not play politics with vaccines.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
How often is Obama referred to as America's first mixed race Pres.?
Saying that a vaccine passport should say which vaccine you got is rather odd. I see no point to that at all.
I agree in an ideal world. I suspect that has been added in case a country decides not to recognise Oxford (for example) and so decides to only recognise a vaccine passport if it specifies an non-Oxford vaccine.
Who knows, maybe we will rule similarly in the case of Russian vaccine??
That's precisely why it should not be done. We shouldn't be encouraging that.
Yes but, pragmatically, travelling to a country Z would become impossible for everyone just because out vaccine passports are insufficiently detailed.
Rental homes have 1 family in them (unless they are housing of multiple occupation which is a different matter).
And how does a rental home with 1 family in it becoming a owner occupied home with 1 family in it change the dynamics of the rental market. Demand for rental housing drops by 1 house, supply of rental housing also drops by 1 house - in a market with x million rental properties the impact is always zero.
No, because the population is constantly evolving with new people being born and growing up to need somewhere to live, and older people dying. If you have a policy that gradually shifts rented accommodation to accommodation for sale, the pool of rented homes for the next cohort shrinks (other things being equal).
The effect can be seen in council housing. The pool of council housing shrinks every year because people exercise their right to buy. In due course, the buyers move on and buy somewhere else, and the property becomes free - but only for people able to buy.
It's possible to argue for this to happen on the grounds that you believe that as many people as possible should own their homes, as you think it makes society more stable or more Conservative-voting or any other worthy or less worthy aim. But it does make life harder for the nearly half of the population who really can't afford to buy or who (like me) don't want to, so even if one thinks it's a good thing the downside should be acknowledged.
It wouldnt be gradually shifting the status quo from rented to owner occupied, it would be stopping the massive shift from owner occupied to rented that has happened in the last 25 years since btl mortgages took off and have become seen as both easy money and the best way to save for a pension (which in turn has a further negative impact on UK investment).
It's not "stopping the massive shift" for two reasons:
1 - We still have a small PRS by comparison. 2 - It stopped back in 2016 in England since when the PRS has been declining as a share of housing stock.
I posted the data on that a few days ago.
Precisely there was a massive shift but Osborne stopped it.
Osborne deserves credit for acting to at least start to resolve a situation that Tories before him and subsequently have simply fuelled.
During my time as a councillor in London, on average every two and three days a house in my ward moved from owner occupied to private rented, for a decade.
How's it been fueled since him? Since him the rate of rented has been declining and the rate of owner ownership has started picking back up again.
The shift from owner occupier to privately rented began under Blair and Brown and was terminated by Osborne. At current rates it will take a long time to reverse though.
Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.
They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.
Saying that a vaccine passport should say which vaccine you got is rather odd. I see no point to that at all.
I agree in an ideal world. I suspect that has been added in case a country decides not to recognise Oxford (for example) and so decides to only recognise a vaccine passport if it specifies an non-Oxford vaccine.
Who knows, maybe we will rule similarly in the case of Russian vaccine??
That's precisely why it should not be done. We shouldn't be encouraging that.
Yes but, pragmatically, travelling to a country Z would become impossible for everyone just because out vaccine passports are insufficiently detailed.
A problem that should be tackled if that situation ever arises.
We shouldn't be facilitating and encouraging that situation to arise. Currently countries and airlines have said they'll require a vaccine, not which vaccine.
It's a policy that has jacked up house prices and made it harder for people who actually need to buy houses to buy them (it's done a great job for those already owning them, which is pointless, they already own a home) vs a policy to pay our nursing staff properly for a job they've done superbly and without complaint over the last year and beyond.
It's obvious to anyone what a better use of the money was.
How does removing a tax on buyers make it harder for a buyer to buy their house? 🙄
Because the sellers simply raise their prices, which they can. Because the buyers aren't buying with their own money, they're buying with a maxed out mortgage. Combine that with a reduction in interest rates and all you've done is raise the price of property while forcing new buyers to take on more debt. That is exactly what has happened.
All of these government 'initiatives' - Help to Buy, LISAs and stamp duty cuts - simply push up prices as described previously.
What we need is to 'encourage' the Buy To Let and other multiple home owner community to release their properties with a fair and equitable tax system on these people, who have had so many tax breaks in the past: - 5% stamp duty loading on acquisition of a second/BTL property (I know we have 3% now) - 3% capital charge PER YEAR - no tax relief on interest paid to buy BTL - double Council Tax on a second property - any capital gain taxed at 40%
That will 'encourage' these people to release these properties! Lots more supply. Prices fall, chance for renters and other aspirant buyers to buy.
Let's do it!
We did this last week.
As a policy, that will do untold damage to the marginal and less well-off members of the community, particularly very significant numbers who cannot access credit.
And in favour of relatively richer people.
It is crazy.
The unholy alliance between the rich and the poor.
The obvious solution has and always will be to increase interest rates slowly to c.3-4% to reduce the profitability of BTL.
Where will the human beings you are proposing to make homeless live?
Ummm, in houses/flats like they do now?
For every BTL property sold to a first time buyer, that's one less person competing in the rental sector.
You don't understand how housing occupation works.
The rental sector is far more densely occupied than the Owner Occupied sector, so when you move X people from the rental sector to OO - by whatever mechanism you are using to close down rental - you need a lot more houses.
I posted the stats the other day. These are in the English Housing Survey.
Nearly Half of OO houses are underoccupied - the official stat is 2 or more spare bedrooms.
For rental that is under 10%.
Therefore you are creating a lot of people with nowhere to live - homeless.
And you need to have a policy where you will put the people you are making homeless.
I don't have a particular view on BTL (I've rented privately in the past, now homeowner; when renting I was in a position to choose my house and landlord and not take any nonsense).
However, the logic in the above is, well, lacking.
Many owned houses are under-occupied because people buy family homes and don't necessarily move when the family moves out. For switch from rental to owned for the same housing stock to suddenly leave masses of homeless you need to argue that a family renting a house at full occupancy is, on buying a house, suddenly going to decide they want two houses to ensure spare rooms. Sure, they may desire a bigger house when buying (with an eye on a family/larger family in the future) but as demand won't have dropped they'll be priced into buying what they need.
There is the area of houses of multiple occupancy - students, single young workers - where these groups would be unlikely to buy together (although that does happen). These groups are not generally going to want to commit to ownership and will remain in the rental sector and/or one buyer with subletting/lodging.
You are missing the point that the family renting the house at full occupancy is unlikely to be in a position to buy a house at all else they probably would have done so.
All it does is shrink the amount of houses that are available to rent for those that for whatever reason can't buy.
The argument goes that if BTL becomes less attractive then more of those houses are sold. To sell, they have to reach people who would otherwise rent, so in this simple view the price drops to the level at which the renting family can now buy. Also, for a house newly for sale, BTL is less attractive, so there are fewer BTL competing with the owner occupiers to buy.
Now, that's clearly an oversimplification. If the value drops then keeping the house to rent out has to become even more unattractive to make the lower selling value the best option etc etc.
The question, which is not easily answered, is whether current levels of BTL are good or bad for society as a whole. If bad, then make it less attractive. If good then stay the same or make more attractive. I note again, that when I rented it was because I did not want to buy, not that I was unable to buy (I was in an area and knew I would be in an area for a relatively short time and didn't want the hassle of ownership) so I certainly don't want to see private landlords disappear. I was merely pointing out that the argument put forward by Matt assumed causation where there is only correlation. It's like saying that people who own homes tend to be older, so if you increase home ownership then everyone will get old.
Don't get you there.
I think I just pointed out a researched observation about the overall behaviour of people who live in rentals, and people who live in owner occupied.
On the anti-republican question - are there any functions that *require* a "head of state" that couldn't be assigned to either Parliament or Government as appropriate? Can't we just do away with any risk of "President Blair" *and* the constitutional functions of the Monarchy at the same time?
There is not a single first world country that does not have a head of state who is either directly elected, nominated or hereditary and is separate from their legislature. In the EU there are 5 monarchs, 21 Presidents (14 directly elected and 7 indirectly elected) and one Grand Duke. The same is repeated in all developed democracies. So yes clearly there are functions that require that separation of powers or a non political figurehead.
Just signed the vaccine passport (in favour) petition moreso as a counterweight to the inevitable antivax passport petition than anything else. The places with greatest support in favour is Finchley interestingly enough.
And that's a key reason so many English people still don't understand how powerful England's radical as much as conservative tradition has been. Its most successful exponent, who could have set in train England as radical-progressive state well before France, at a time when England was much more receptive to all sorts of interesting radical ideas than most of Europe, was an intolerant, monomaniacal and unnerving brute, and everyone loved the partly Italian, Florentine-derived libertinism of Charles II that replaced him in a gigantic contrast.
Saying that a vaccine passport should say which vaccine you got is rather odd. I see no point to that at all.
I agree in an ideal world. I suspect that has been added in case a country decides not to recognise Oxford (for example) and so decides to only recognise a vaccine passport if it specifies an non-Oxford vaccine.
Who knows, maybe we will rule similarly in the case of Russian vaccine??
That's precisely why it should not be done. We shouldn't be encouraging that.
Yes but, pragmatically, travelling to a country Z would become impossible for everyone just because out vaccine passports are insufficiently detailed.
A problem that should be tackled if that situation ever arises.
We shouldn't be facilitating and encouraging that situation to arise. Currently countries and airlines have said they'll require a vaccine, not which vaccine.
I wouldn`t let this detail stop you form supporting the petition though. It`s been instigated (belatedly) as a competitor to the one below, which has 270k signatures:
Seems the quickest route to a Labour government would be @HYUFD as returning officer binning half the votes as not real Tory votes.
- Yes, let's replace my definition with his. Labour landslide!
Hardly, given most voters are monarchists and the vast majority of Tories are monarchists, my definition of a Tory would be far more likely to lead to a Tory landslide than an incorrect free market liberal definition of a Tory.
The former can win the Red Wall, the latter can't.
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
No, monarchy is the definition of Toryism, state control of most of the economy is the definition of Socialism
Seems the quickest route to a Labour government would be @HYUFD as returning officer binning half the votes as not real Tory votes.
- Yes, let's replace my definition with his. Labour landslide!
Hardly, given most voters are monarchists and the vast majority of Tories are monarchists, my definition of a Tory would be far more likely to lead to a Tory landslide than an incorrect free market liberal definition of a Tory.
The former can win the Red Wall, the latter can't.
"Keep" would win a Monarchy Referendum hands down, yes.
But I thought you were saying all Tories are Monarchists not all Monarchists are Tories.
Mr. Eagles, there is an international men's day (I recall Jess Phillips[sp] laughing at the idea we might have a Commons discussion on men's issues, such as high suicide rates).
Also, 'lived experience' is a stupid term. She's made assertions and claims. Some notably lacking detail to promote speculation, one at least that's contrary to law (the early marriage).
Just a few more days and testing starts. Hoping the midfield has a good time.
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
Oh behave.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.
Guys I wrote a whole damn thread so you didn’t have to keep on having this argument!
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
I am saying this as someone who hasn't watched the interview, but was it definitely a 'hope' being expressed that it wasn't going to be a black baby? That sounds completely stupid apart from anything else - not much Meghan can do about it is there?
What if the conversation was more someone who thought they'd developed a rapport with Meghan (eg. Kate) wondering with pleasure whether the child could have beautiful and unusual colouring - for example caramel skin tone but with blue eyes. It would still be insensitive, and ill-judged, but not intentionally hurtful. If the conversation was more like that, it would be a great pity for it to be weaponised this way.
On the other hand, if it was Princess Michael of Kent, it could have been as portrayed; she thinks the entire Royal family are lumpen proles compared to her anyway.
Princess Michael of Kent would be my guess
Nope - it's not the racist elderly aunt and it's supposedly been narrowed down to 4 people way higher up in the pecking order (either them or their other halves).
And from that you can probably have a good idea which person it is...
If it’s not the Queen or Prince Philip, it is either William, Kate, Charles or Camilla.
I would say the likelihood in reverse order is Charles William Kate Camilla
But really, it’s still a nothing as far as I am concerned. It’s true I may err towards describing things as stupid rather than racist, although I’ve just realised in writing this that my father would now be described as “BAME” these days.
In some ways we are more race obsessed and twitchy about race than we were a generation ago.
As a contribution to the general rumour-mongering and low-grade, twitchy speculation, I would be very surprised if it wasn't one of Philip, Princess Michael, Andrew, Camilla, Anne or Edward.
Can someone clarify when this comment was made? Meghan said it was while she was pregnant. Harry said it was before he was married.
Saying that a vaccine passport should say which vaccine you got is rather odd. I see no point to that at all.
I agree in an ideal world. I suspect that has been added in case a country decides not to recognise Oxford (for example) and so decides to only recognise a vaccine passport if it specifies an non-Oxford vaccine.
Who knows, maybe we will rule similarly in the case of Russian vaccine??
That's precisely why it should not be done. We shouldn't be encouraging that.
Yes but, pragmatically, travelling to a country Z would become impossible for everyone just because out vaccine passports are insufficiently detailed.
A problem that should be tackled if that situation ever arises.
We shouldn't be facilitating and encouraging that situation to arise. Currently countries and airlines have said they'll require a vaccine, not which vaccine.
I wouldn`t let this detail stop you form supporting the petition though. It`s been instigated (belatedly) as a competitor to the one below, which has 270k signatures:
Do we know how much H&M received for the interview and if they have donated it to charity? If they have simply pocketed the cash, then that is a black mark against them.
They received no fee according to the Wall Street Journal.
Nearly a quarter of a century after Diana's death, I can't believe we're still going through all this bullshit. We are a strange country. The Yanks' interest in this circus doesn't help.
Some like the monarchy because of the circus. I prefer it boring, that's the point of a figurehead institution in my book. One less thing to worry about.
You're of course right about the circus bit. I too would like the nation's figurehead institution to be boring. And elected, preferably.
The very act of being elected will make it political and therefore definitely not boring.
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.
Apparently a significant chunk of them are pro-indy and vote SNP. It's bizarre.
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
Oh behave.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.
Guys I wrote a whole damn thread so you didn’t have to keep on having this argument!
It’s boring as f*** for the rest of us
It isn't, it is fact
Only in your mind.
For everyone else for the past 200 years nearly a Tory is a supporter of the Conservative Party.
It is literally the dictionary definition.
Tory /ˈtɔːri/ noun (in the UK) a member or supporter of the Conservative Party.
Nearly a quarter of a century after Diana's death, I can't believe we're still going through all this bullshit. We are a strange country. The Yanks' interest in this circus doesn't help.
Some like the monarchy because of the circus. I prefer it boring, that's the point of a figurehead institution in my book. One less thing to worry about.
You're of course right about the circus bit. I too would like the nation's figurehead institution to be boring. And elected, preferably.
I doubt people would elect boring figureheads!
The Irish seem to manage. Perhaps boring isn’t what I mean. ‘Devoid of scandal’ is perhaps what I hanker after. And above party politics. That would be nice. A national treasure. President Attenborough, something like that. It’ll never happen.
Nearly a quarter of a century after Diana's death, I can't believe we're still going through all this bullshit. We are a strange country. The Yanks' interest in this circus doesn't help.
Some like the monarchy because of the circus. I prefer it boring, that's the point of a figurehead institution in my book. One less thing to worry about.
You're of course right about the circus bit. I too would like the nation's figurehead institution to be boring. And elected, preferably.
The very act of being elected will make it political and therefore definitely not boring.
Places seem to manage, Ireland and India I think, but it just seems weird to have a figurehead with no real powers be elected. If elected people should have significant actual power it seems to me.
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.
However there’s a hard core that choose to associate themselves with the Orange Order, Orange marches, NI loyalists, other right wing football groups and hatred of Catholics. They were out in force yesterday, and for better or worse they have chosen the Union flag and the monarchy as their symbols.
And Israel still?
Newton's third law would have been socially based if he had lived in Glasgow....
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
Oh behave.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.
Guys I wrote a whole damn thread so you didn’t have to keep on having this argument!
It’s boring as f*** for the rest of us
It isn't, it is fact
Only in your mind.
For everyone else for the past 200 years nearly a Tory is a supporter of the Conservative Party.
It is literally the dictionary definition.
Tory /ˈtɔːri/ noun (in the UK) a member or supporter of the Conservative Party.
Might as well go back to claiming it means irish rebels.
I don't get Rangers. Do they all vote Scottish Conservative, campaign for the Union amongst their mates and families, and fervently support the monarchy? Or do they simply fly the UJ around as a symbol of their football club, and go on a yob-riot, and nothing more?
Given the images, pictures, quotes and "interviews" with some of them I've seen in the past, I'm inclined to believe it's the latter, possibly with some protestant sectarianism on top.
Apparently a significant chunk of them are pro-indy and vote SNP. It's bizarre.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
On the anti-republican question - are there any functions that *require* a "head of state" that couldn't be assigned to either Parliament or Government as appropriate? Can't we just do away with any risk of "President Blair" *and* the constitutional functions of the Monarchy at the same time?
There is not a single first world country that does not have a head of state who is either directly elected, nominated or hereditary and is separate from their legislature. In the EU there are 5 monarchs, 21 Presidents (14 directly elected and 7 indirectly elected) and one Grand Duke. The same is repeated in all developed democracies. So yes clearly there are functions that require that separation of powers or a non political figurehead.
That's exactly my question, though. It hasn't been done - but why? If we were to have this debate about "what to do" which powers does the Monarch wield that aren't effectively wielded by either Parliament or Government, and to whom would *they* devolve? If we *did* have a directly or indirectly elected individual, which powers would they accrue - and would any of those currently be ones that are in the effective control of Government or Parliament? Would Parliament and/or Government take to that?
Precisely what I told you would happen two years ago while we were still debating May's calamitous deal.
The UK having taken back control can pick and choose what controls it chooses to exercise. If adding controls causes disruption then we can at our own discretion opt out of exercising those controls until we determine it suits us best.
On the anti-republican question - are there any functions that *require* a "head of state" that couldn't be assigned to either Parliament or Government as appropriate? Can't we just do away with any risk of "President Blair" *and* the constitutional functions of the Monarchy at the same time?
There is not a single first world country that does not have a head of state who is either directly elected, nominated or hereditary and is separate from their legislature. In the EU there are 5 monarchs, 21 Presidents (14 directly elected and 7 indirectly elected) and one Grand Duke. The same is repeated in all developed democracies. So yes clearly there are functions that require that separation of powers or a non political figurehead.
That's exactly my question, though. It hasn't been done - but why? If we were to have this debate about "what to do" which powers does the Monarch wield that aren't effectively wielded by either Parliament or Government, and to whom would *they* devolve? If we *did* have a directly or indirectly elected individual, which powers would they accrue - and would any of those currently be ones that are in the effective control of Government or Parliament? Would Parliament and/or Government take to that?
(Is the answer something like "(modern) republics were almost all set up in post-imperial [British/Soviet] transitions and so we haven't tried it with a modern western democracy")
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
I think there's now a fair to middling chance that the roadmap will be liberalised, to some extent. There are some glaring anomalies with it already – the massive England vs Scotland football match at Wembley in Euro 2021 and Royal Ascot are scheduled less than a week before the restrictions are supposed to end! That cannot hold, and I expect a fudge at the very least whereby the government calls them 'test events' and thus allows full crowds.
The bigger question is what happens outside the sporting/music arena? I mean, deaths are likely to fall to averaging double figures this week or next. Are we really going to maintain the rules through Easter and April if the numbers are barely troubling the scorers?
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
I don't look at it like that. The household mixing and meeting up rules were never actively policed. In practice it was guidance not compulsion. And as the pandemic fades you expect people to get ahead of the roadmap. That's planned for and priced in. I don't see any big problem at all. And I certainly don't see any lesson here that the rules went too far. As I've said before, the only major aspect that imo went too far was the ban on visiting people in care. That, for me, was wrong.
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
Unfortunately I don`t think the government ARE massively behind the majority of the public on this.
Neither you nor TSE are or ever will be Tories. Even today the Tory party does far better in rural areas than it does in the cities.
You are both libertarian liberals, nothing more.
Oh behave.
I'm a Thatcherite free marketeer, I joined the Tory party in large part because of Mrs Thatcher's tenure as PM.
If you're saying Mrs Thatcher is not a Tory then you really have no hope.
Spoiler alert: Mrs Thatcher wasn't very complimentary about the Queen either, I think she said the Queen was the sort of person that would vote SDP.
Being a Thatcherite free marketeer does not make you a Tory. Indeed in many respects Thatcher herself was closer to a Gladstonian Liberal than a Disraelian Tory, only Thatcher's support of the monarchy, despite occasional disagreements with the Queen, meant she was still able to be called a Tory.
Guys I wrote a whole damn thread so you didn’t have to keep on having this argument!
It’s boring as f*** for the rest of us
It isn't, it is fact
Only in your mind.
For everyone else for the past 200 years nearly a Tory is a supporter of the Conservative Party.
It is literally the dictionary definition.
Tory /ˈtɔːri/ noun (in the UK) a member or supporter of the Conservative Party.
A party which is and remains more monarchist than it is free market liberal, after all only last week the Conservative Government put forward plans to raise corporation tax
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
I don't look at it like that. The household mixing and meeting up rules were never actively policed. In practice it was guidance not compulsion. And as the pandemic fades you expect people to get ahead of the roadmap. That's planned for and priced in. I don't see any big problem at all. And I certainly don't see any lesson here that the rules went too far. As I've said before, the only major aspect that imo went too far was the ban on visiting people in care. That, for me, was wrong.
The ban on visiting people in care was what could be termed "cruel and unusual punishment".
It was also if you want to prevent deaths and spread in homes absolutely critically necessary.
There was simply no way to have spread in the community and visits in homes safely. So either accept mass fatalities in care homes, or shut them from the outside world.
There was no right answer as far as I'm concerned there.
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
Unfortunately I don`t think the government ARE massively behind the majority of the public on this.
+1 - I suspect the Government's viewpoint is very much we want to exit this lockdown in a way where we will definitely not end up in another one...
Given we're testing 6.7m kids with lateral flow this week, and the government estimate is that 3 in 1000 will get a false positive, expect to see a spike in 'cases' coming to a government website near you shortly.
Meanwhile Zoe app estimate down 9% again today, positively falling off a cliff last few days and strongly suggesting we're nearing the tipping point where immunity levels are too high for the virus to circulate.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
How often is Obama referred to as America's first mixed race Pres.?
Never. It's such a very careful label. Yet it was religiously used for Meghan. That's what got me thinking along the lines of my original post.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
You don't know history if you don't think Wallis and Edward were Nazi sympathisers.
Happy 'being allowed to leave your house for recreation' day everyone
I assume the govt are now fully aware that they're massively behind the majority of the public now, in attitudes to lockdown. My only rationalisation of this is that 'holding the line' on being slow will appease the Nick P's of this world...
Whilst many say they support the caution, the streets are really busy again, the roads back to normal levels, and the vaccinated are popping in to see one another. It was so nice to see multi generational families at the seaside over the weekend. The law went far too far on restricting social contact; I trust that we learn from this and never do it again.
I think there's now a fair to middling chance that the roadmap will be liberalised, to some extent. There are some glaring anomalies with it already – the massive England vs Scotland football match at Wembley in Euro 2021 and Royal Ascot are scheduled less than a week before the restrictions are supposed to end! That cannot hold, and I expect a fudge at the very least whereby the government calls them 'test events' and thus allows full crowds.
The bigger question is what happens outside the sporting/music arena? I mean, deaths are likely to fall to averaging double figures this week or next. Are we really going to maintain the rules through Easter and April if the numbers are barely troubling the scorers?
For the first time I am now officially a lockdown sceptic. Id be happy to accept limiting social life to the rule of six outdoors for another month or two, but stay at home orders and only meeting one other person are excessive in the current climate. They are not being followed or enforced anyway.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
I remember when I watched Suits and she was cast with a black father I simply assumed it was woke racially blind casting.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
It was the behaviour between 1939 and 1945 that made the world wary that the Windsors were Nazi sympathisers.
Churchill was convinced on it, he threatened the Duke with a court martial at one point.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
I take it you know little of Edward and Wallis's views regarding Nazism?
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
Indeed, there was an idiot on here not so long ago denying that the father of Kamala Harris was a black dude.
Rental homes have 1 family in them (unless they are housing of multiple occupation which is a different matter).
And how does a rental home with 1 family in it becoming a owner occupied home with 1 family in it change the dynamics of the rental market. Demand for rental housing drops by 1 house, supply of rental housing also drops by 1 house - in a market with x million rental properties the impact is always zero.
No, because the population is constantly evolving with new people being born and growing up to need somewhere to live, and older people dying. If you have a policy that gradually shifts rented accommodation to accommodation for sale, the pool of rented homes for the next cohort shrinks (other things being equal).
The effect can be seen in council housing. The pool of council housing shrinks every year because people exercise their right to buy. In due course, the buyers move on and buy somewhere else, and the property becomes free - but only for people able to buy.
It's possible to argue for this to happen on the grounds that you believe that as many people as possible should own their homes, as you think it makes society more stable or more Conservative-voting or any other worthy or less worthy aim. But it does make life harder for the nearly half of the population who really can't afford to buy or who (like me) don't want to, so even if one thinks it's a good thing the downside should be acknowledged.
It wouldnt be gradually shifting the status quo from rented to owner occupied, it would be stopping the massive shift from owner occupied to rented that has happened in the last 25 years since btl mortgages took off and have become seen as both easy money and the best way to save for a pension (which in turn has a further negative impact on UK investment).
It's not "stopping the massive shift" for two reasons:
1 - We still have a small PRS by comparison. 2 - It stopped back in 2016 in England since when the PRS has been declining as a share of housing stock.
I posted the data on that a few days ago.
Precisely there was a massive shift but Osborne stopped it.
Osborne deserves credit for acting to at least start to resolve a situation that Tories before him and subsequently have simply fuelled.
During my time as a councillor in London, on average every two and three days a house in my ward moved from owner occupied to private rented, for a decade.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
Um. We are talking about the ex-Monarch who gave full Nazi salutes here. Not some random celeb that Hitler happened to be near.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
He is a supporter of the Labour Party, don't forget. They have form in these things. Don't blame him, it is the institution.
It's an apolitical observation from me, in fact. And I could be wrong - but let's face it that's unlikely.
That's true. But as with vaccine efficacy 92% is not 100% and I fear this is part of your 8%.
In fact, annualised, you have used up your 8% quotas for the next few years but I am really looking forward to your solid, absolutely incontrovertible 92% posts.
Chuckle. But bantering aside - I offered the OpEd that Meghan's acceptance here as bride of Harry would have been less widespread and sincere if she had been "proper" black rather than mixed race. It's not particularly provable or otherwise, but do you not feel that?
Though widely travelled, Edward shared a widely held racial prejudice against foreigners and many of the Empire's subjects, believing that whites were inherently superior. In 1920, on his visit to Australia, he wrote of Indigenous Australians: "they are the most revolting form of living creatures I've ever seen!! They are the lowest known form of human beings & are the nearest thing to monkeys."
The monarchy isn’t going anywhere. It makes too much money for everyone. It’s the global soap opera the whole world follows, even as cast members die off and new ones are introduced
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
You don't know history if you don't think Wallis and Edward were Nazi sympathisers.
I think that's what I said, but maybe not clearly enough.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
This was the era of a lot of "inconvenient" facts that have since been forgotten and swept under the carpet, such as the England team giving the Nazi salute in Germany in 1936, or significant parts of upper-class MI5 anticipating collaboration with the Nazis as preferential in the event of an invasion and communist partisan uprising, during the worried period of 1940-1.
Biggest shock for me from the interview was that they got married 3 days before they got married. That shook me to my very foundations.
Smallest shock - so small as to be not a shock at all - was that there was concern expressed about how black their son would look. Meghan was accepted into the Royal Family as a mixed race woman who does not look very black. If she'd been and looked full on, I doubt the marriage would have happened.
One wonders how the "concern" was served up? It could have been of the crass, jocular variety, "Let's hope junior doesn't look too jungle, Hazzer, what!". Or it could have been sly, passive aggressive, "I know it shouldn't be an issue, Harry dear, but I guess it would make things easier if he looks like his father, you know what I mean?"
One wonders this because the answer would steer us towards the culprit.
There’s no evidence that a “full on” looking person would not have been allowed.
I find this a bizarre idea, really.
Maybe you are projecting.
I'm not projecting. And it's not the sort of thing that lends itself to hard evidence. The question, "Would you have been as accepting of a fully black woman into the heart of the Royal Family as you are of Meghan Markle?" would not be answered honestly.
But let me give you something. I noticed, back when she emerged as Harry's girlfriend and it became clear it was serious, how very very careful everyone was, especially in the media, to refer to Meghan as mixed race. And I compared this to how similarly mixed race footballers (of whom there are many) are routinely referred to as black.
Why do you think that was?
You are determined to have your Woke agenda heard, but it’s less sinister than you suppose. It’s because she LOOKS rather white, with, perhaps, a hint of Hispanic? Remember Danny Baker got fired for associating her kid with a monkey - he’s not a racist, he just didn’t realise he was making a toxic visual analogy, because he didn’t know she IS in any way black (because he’s not a close observer of the royals)
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
I agree. It was only when Wendell "Bunky Bunk" Pierce rocked up a few seasons in as her Dad that I even gave a second thought to her race. Some people are determined to drag everything back to race in a way that I find rather sad and self defeating.
Main National news. Half of it devoted to estranged members of dysfunctional family, pointing out that it is dysfunctional. That the Emperor has no clothes. Cue huge section for "Royal Correspondent" to describe, in gushing, flowery detail, the resplendence and magnificence of the garments he's never seen. What a bizarre country we live in. It's not as though anything else is happening. Like schools opening after nearly 3 months or summat.
No idea who Dawn Foster is, but she clearly knows no history. Pretty sure Hitler got photographed alongside a lot of people from 1933-39, including a certain British PM.
There's a bit more to it than that, though. Their visit was made against the advice of the British government. During it they both gave Nazi salutes. Simpson is on record as having said that the French lost because they were "internally diseased"; in Portugal they were guests of a banker believed to have been a German spy; at the time the same was believed of her, as released FBI files show. The BBC refused to broadcast Edward's speech supporting appeasement before the war. The German ambassador even claimed he had leaked Allied plans for the defence of France. And it is widely believed that had the Germans invaded Britain they would have been plonked back on the throne.
Comments
The famous swiping function of Tinder with short videos.
My wife loves it and will sit swiping through videos rapidly.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/574479
It’s boring as f*** for the rest of us
1 - We still have a small PRS by comparison.
2 - It stopped back in 2016 in England since when the PRS has been declining as a share of housing stock.
I posted the data on that a few days ago.
1st dose 2nd dose
3,237 7,685
Points to 175k total jabs UK wide (Probably wrong)
Who knows, maybe we will rule similarly in the case of Russian vaccine??
https://twitter.com/dawnhfoster/status/1368882101349679107?s=21
During my time as a councillor in London, on average every two and three days a house in my ward moved from owner occupied to private rented, for a decade.
Simply say that people have been vaccinated. If countries want vaccinated British tourists they'll need to acccept that not play politics with vaccines.
The shift from owner occupier to privately rented began under Blair and Brown and was terminated by Osborne. At current rates it will take a long time to reverse though.
Just a percentage of profits
We shouldn't be facilitating and encouraging that situation to arise. Currently countries and airlines have said they'll require a vaccine, not which vaccine.
I think I just pointed out a researched observation about the overall behaviour of people who live in rentals, and people who live in owner occupied.
The places with greatest support in favour is Finchley interestingly enough.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/569957
If you don't know what a Singapore grip is then don't google it.
But I thought you were saying all Tories are Monarchists not all Monarchists are Tories.
Also, 'lived experience' is a stupid term. She's made assertions and claims. Some notably lacking detail to promote speculation, one at least that's contrary to law (the early marriage).
Just a few more days and testing starts. Hoping the midfield has a good time.
I think we have a right to know
There should be vaccine passports (there need to be) but they should not include which vaccine you got.
But he was chief whip. So he might know some stuff that the PM would prefer not to be known.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/old-firm-united-both-celtic-3598872
For everyone else for the past 200 years nearly a Tory is a supporter of the Conservative Party.
It is literally the dictionary definition.
Take Back ControlFuck it.
https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/1368910839185502211
Calling Meghan ‘black’, therefore, is jarring. It’s not what the average person can see with their own eyes.
I remember when I first saw Meghan Markle in Suits. My first thought was: stunning. She is. If asked about her race I’d have guessed mixed in some way. Possibly white-Mexican. Or white-Brazilian
Whereas with people like Oprah and Ian Wright, they are definitely black, so saying they are black does not jar
The UK having taken back control can pick and choose what controls it chooses to exercise. If adding controls causes disruption then we can at our own discretion opt out of exercising those controls until we determine it suits us best.
The bigger question is what happens outside the sporting/music arena? I mean, deaths are likely to fall to averaging double figures this week or next. Are we really going to maintain the rules through Easter and April if the numbers are barely troubling the scorers?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/return-wallis-simpson-2219771.html
It was also if you want to prevent deaths and spread in homes absolutely critically necessary.
There was simply no way to have spread in the community and visits in homes safely. So either accept mass fatalities in care homes, or shut them from the outside world.
There was no right answer as far as I'm concerned there.
Given we're testing 6.7m kids with lateral flow this week, and the government estimate is that 3 in 1000 will get a false positive, expect to see a spike in 'cases' coming to a government website near you shortly.
Meanwhile Zoe app estimate down 9% again today, positively falling off a cliff last few days and strongly suggesting we're nearing the tipping point where immunity levels are too high for the virus to circulate.
Churchill was convinced on it, he threatened the Duke with a court martial at one point.
Most of the world is different.
Disgusting behaviour.
The monarchy isn’t going anywhere. It makes too much money for everyone. It’s the global soap opera the whole world follows, even as cast members die off and new ones are introduced
https://twitter.com/cnn/status/1368887499377016833?s=21
Half of it devoted to estranged members of dysfunctional family, pointing out that it is dysfunctional. That the Emperor has no clothes.
Cue huge section for "Royal Correspondent" to describe, in gushing, flowery detail, the resplendence and magnificence of the garments he's never seen.
What a bizarre country we live in.
It's not as though anything else is happening. Like schools opening after nearly 3 months or summat.