Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
He had been promised a promotion on his 60 birthday. It was deferred because of the Epstein situation. He thinks that he should get to wear the uniform despite not being promoted.
The politest comment I can think of is is that he is utterly tin-eared
What does he actually think being 'promoted' would mean? Would he get more pay? Be able to order more people or ships around? Would anyone respect him more (or at all)?
There must be Trumpian levels of self-delusion involved.
Apparently he gets 3 gold stripes on his arm instead of 2 🤯
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Taxpayers haven’t yet got the bill for all these favours , but when it comes people are not going to be happy.
If that's all the Opposition's got, I fear you're going to be immensely disappointed. Any taxpayers who care that much about where their money's going aren't going to put their trust in a Labour Party with diabolical ratings on managing the economy.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Simple answer is that, in the short term, populism is popular. Look at Peron. Look at Berlusconi. It just tends to leave countries that are governed according to populism in a bad way, because the money runs out. And then the countries involved have a choice between "neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners" or something worse.
Unless you know of an exception. Scholar that you are.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
I thought you were a fan of the coalition government? That's who's bent, not the current administration (they might be too, but from what I can tell Sunak did everything right).
Yes, by and large I was a supporter of the Coalition. That doesn't make me blind to the sleaze, and I think that the key events were under Tory control, and/or after 2015.
The lack of wanting to own the coalition record in government is why the Lib Dems got their arses hand to them by the electorate.
This is one of those weird statements that I see repeated as fact a lot.
Simply going into coalition with the Tories broke the Lib Dems in the eyes of many voters.
In 2010 they got 18.9% of the vote in Scotland, in 2011 they got 8% - losing over half their vote. This was not down to failing to own their record in government.
But it explains why they are still nailed to the floor
The anti-Tory tendency still hates them but they can’t win the soft Tories over if they aren’t proud of the coalition.
I should be a natural target for the Lib Dem’s. But they don’t even try.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Taxpayers haven’t yet got the bill for all these favours , but when it comes people are not going to be happy.
I'm not excusing sleaze here - I hate the chumocracy and incipient low-level corruption of this administration, which shames this country, and I think it comes from the top - but it's a hygiene factor as far as the electorate are concerned.
It makes hastens an unpopular Government to its grave, when it's already on its way out, but in and of itself it does not.
Why? Because voters will put who they think will best defend their economic and social wellbeing first.
You’re better off stacking shelves at Morrison’s than caring for older and disabled people, and that’s not good enough for our country. #COVID19 has exposed the urgent need to reform staff pay, terms & conditions. My question in Parliament today...."
This seems a far bigger scandal to me than an inflation based pay rise for nurses.
Whilst I'd be in favour of paying nurses more if we can afford it (we probably cant), imo we must find more money to pay care staff appropriately, which means significant year on year increases maintained over several years.
Liz 4% Kendall sneering at "shelf stackers" not a good look either.
Does she really even think there is a job called that,and after shop workers have risked their lives too to keep the shops open why sneer at them.
Typical out of touch Politician or just terrible wording from a talentless individual?
I think those having a go at Liz Kendall, are those who would be having a go at er anyway, and the outrage is confected. It is not a sneer imo.
Shelf stacker is still a relevant term, though in some places it has been 'remanufactured' as "Night Replenishment Assistant".
But isn't one lesson from covid that "shelf stackers" or "Night replenishment assistant" are actually really important to us and undervalued in society just like care workers?
I would expect a Labour position to understand this and champion their cause, not belittle their contribution.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Starmer has a lot more integrity than Johnson, I suspect. Crucially, he will deal with miscreants ruthlessly - anybody caught with their hand in the till or similar will be out. I doubt Jenrick or Patel would have survived had Starmer been their leader. This means nothing at the moment, but over the next three years I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to be seen by the public as an important difference in leadership.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Starmer has a lot more integrity than Johnson, I suspect. Crucially, he will deal with miscreants ruthlessly - anybody caught with their hand in the till or similar will be out. I doubt Jenrick or Patel would have survived had Starmer been their leader. This means nothing at the moment, but over the next three years I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to be seen by the public as an important difference in leadership.
I think that's probably true, but it doesn't matter much if his values, and those of his party, are not shared by the public.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Although he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet without a murmur of protest. He’s an opportunist
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Taxpayers haven’t yet got the bill for all these favours , but when it comes people are not going to be happy.
They might not be happy, but they hold all politicians in low regard and will vote for what they consider to be the lesser of two evils.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Although he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet without a murmur of protest. He’s an opportunist
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Although he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet without a murmur of protest. He’s an opportunist
That's also true. I'd say he plays with a straight bat when he's in charge, but he otherwise equivocates and triangulates and takes a careerist approach to climbing the ladder.
The trouble is that to be a leader you have to take risks and, well, lead.
I presume there's been comment on the new London Mayoral polling from Opinium.
Sadiq Khan will be relaxed with a rating of 51% (-2) while Bailey (29%), Berry and Porritt (both 8%) are all up a point but this is margin of error stuff.
Khan beats Bailey 64-36 in a run off (Khan down 2, Bailey up 2).
Oh puh'lease.
Any poll without Brian Rose in poll position isn't worth the paper it's not written on.
Both the US and the UK have five former Heads of Government currently. In the US, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump while in the UK we have Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.
In the US, ex-Presidents seem to have a certain mystique - almost impervious to criticism, they are able to work together and on various issues. Some may have the ear of the current WH incumbent, others won't, Carter, for example, for all his Presidency was a disaster, has done fantastic work with his Habitat for Humanity projects. Clinton worked with George HW Bush in Haiti and George W Bush and Obama have established a firm friendship since the latter left the WH.
Over here, ex-Prime Ministers seem to be treated rather differently - they are expected to stay out of politics and any intervention or comment seems to draw vitriol from nearly all sides. It's as though once they leave No.10 they are deemed failures who have no longer any contribution to make to public life.
Apart from the absurdity of that notion, why should a relatively young man like Cameron (or indeed Blair) not want to do something else with their lives? Are they somehow forbidden to use any of the contacts or influence they once enjoyed? Why should they, like the Royal Family, be forbidden from having opinions?
I think there's a serious and proper debate to be had about the role of the ex-Prime Minister and how we could and indeed should constructively use the abilities they doubtless have for the greater good?
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
I thought you were a fan of the coalition government? That's who's bent, not the current administration (they might be too, but from what I can tell Sunak did everything right).
Yes, by and large I was a supporter of the Coalition. That doesn't make me blind to the sleaze, and I think that the key events were under Tory control, and/or after 2015.
The lack of wanting to own the coalition record in government is why the Lib Dems got their arses hand to them by the electorate.
This is one of those weird statements that I see repeated as fact a lot.
Simply going into coalition with the Tories broke the Lib Dems in the eyes of many voters.
In 2010 they got 18.9% of the vote in Scotland, in 2011 they got 8% - losing over half their vote. This was not down to failing to own their record in government.
But it explains why they are still nailed to the floor
The anti-Tory tendency still hates them but they can’t win the soft Tories over if they aren’t proud of the coalition.
I should be a natural target for the Lib Dem’s. But they don’t even try.
The whole coalition thing is weird. After years they got in a position where they could do a bit of what they campaigned for, and be in a bit of power - which is why you stand in elections. They compromise on various policies - that's what coalitions are all about and should put themselves in a position to build on that.
Instead their own supporters turn on them for doing compromise politics, blame them for not fulfilling their election manifesto when they are a small minority, and destroy a once respectable party.
Good people like Clegg and Laws self destruct/get obliterated, and their voters come across as a pathetic shower of losers who vote against their own party because they won something. They seem no better than the Labour left. Any Liberal with sense has little choice now but to join the liberal/libertarian/one nation (according to taste) section of the Tories.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Although he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet without a murmur of protest. He’s an opportunist
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
I thought you were a fan of the coalition government? That's who's bent, not the current administration (they might be too, but from what I can tell Sunak did everything right).
Yes, by and large I was a supporter of the Coalition. That doesn't make me blind to the sleaze, and I think that the key events were under Tory control, and/or after 2015.
The lack of wanting to own the coalition record in government is why the Lib Dems got their arses hand to them by the electorate.
Not the only reason, but I agree. We see now how the Lib Dems kept the Tories under control. The post 2015 chaos and incompetence of a majority Tory government shows the difference.
The only chaos and incompetence was when Mrs Strong & Stable took over and threw away the majority.
There's been great competence since then which is how we managed to get a revised Brexit agreement, a trade deal and world beating vaccinations.
Before then, I think. In fact, from the moment Cameron was on his own at the head of the government. He needed the Lib Dems to protect him from his right-wing extremists. Without the Lib Dems he was lost.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
Reclaiming over a billion pounds a month NET and increasing annually in membership fees we no longer need to pay?
Taking back control of our laws, set by our Parliament to suit us?
Signing new trade deals with the rest of the world that make up the majority of our trade already?
Joining the CPTPP which is not just a faster growing trade organisation than the EU, but will also be once we join a larger trade organisation than the EU itself - and will come on top of a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the EU?
That sort of thing? Those of us who aren't stuck in the past can see the benefits even if you haven't caught up yet.
1. Dwarfed by the massive increased red tape costs (and you've forgotten the ongoing payments to the EU)
2. Taking back control to the extent that the government can't authorise the sale of a bag of seed potatoes from one part of our own country to another. Yeah, wonderful.
3. Signing trade deals is a good thing, yes, compared with not doing so, but they only replicate what we already had.
4. No-one, not a single person on this earth who has looked at joining CPTPP in any detail thinks that (if indeed we do join) it will make any noticeable difference at all, certainly nothing like enough to compensate for the catastrophic increase in costs and non-tariff barriers Boris has created.
1a. The ongoing payments to the EU are miniscule in comparison and are from liabilities accrued during membership. The notion we should continue accruing liabilities because we had some is rather perverse so do you really mean that?
1b. As for the red tape costs I'll say [Citation Needed] that they dwarf the membership costs please. Plus while the red tape costs are far from ideal at least a significant chunk of them are paying people in this country to certify forms etc who will then circulate the money domestically as opposed to abroad.
2. I don't care about Northern Ireland. Not many do. Not ideal but domestic stuff is more important.
3. Simply wrong, we are negotiating new deals that we did not have before.
4. Disagreed. Plus it's only one example of many.
Something tells me you two will still be having this discussion in 50 years' time ...
Of course the debate isn't going to go away- any more than it did after 1975.
If the Brexit Project works- if it makes people happier, more prosperous and more in control of their lives- it will stick.
If it doesn't, it won't.
Oh yes, there are still plenty of people who relitigate the slave trade or the Norman Conquest or any other serious question. But as the Poet said, "history to the defeated / May say alas, but cannot help or pardon".
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
I thought you were a fan of the coalition government? That's who's bent, not the current administration (they might be too, but from what I can tell Sunak did everything right).
Yes, by and large I was a supporter of the Coalition. That doesn't make me blind to the sleaze, and I think that the key events were under Tory control, and/or after 2015.
The lack of wanting to own the coalition record in government is why the Lib Dems got their arses hand to them by the electorate.
This is one of those weird statements that I see repeated as fact a lot.
Simply going into coalition with the Tories broke the Lib Dems in the eyes of many voters.
In 2010 they got 18.9% of the vote in Scotland, in 2011 they got 8% - losing over half their vote. This was not down to failing to own their record in government.
But it explains why they are still nailed to the floor
The anti-Tory tendency still hates them but they can’t win the soft Tories over if they aren’t proud of the coalition.
I should be a natural target for the Lib Dem’s. But they don’t even try.
The whole coalition thing is weird. After years they got in a position where they could do a bit of what they campaigned for, and be in a bit of power - which is why you stand in elections. They compromise on various policies - that's what coalitions are all about and should put themselves in a position to build on that.
Instead their own supporters turn on them for doing compromise politics, blame them for not fulfilling their election manifesto when they are a small minority, and destroy a once respectable party.
Good people like Clegg and Laws self destruct/get obliterated, and their voters come across as a pathetic shower of losers who vote against their own party because they won something. They seem no better than the Labour left. Any Liberal with sense has little choice now but to join the liberal/libertarian/one nation (according to taste) section of the Tories.
The Lib Dems sold out far too cheaply and reneged on a pledge.
If you draw a significant portion of support from students don't fuck with the students.
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Although he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet without a murmur of protest. He’s an opportunist
He's a dishonest, slimy snake.
Do neither of you worry that your hard earned taxes are perhaps being "spaffed up the wall" by unscrupulous politicians? I do, be those knaves Labour, LD or Conservatives.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
I thought you were a fan of the coalition government? That's who's bent, not the current administration (they might be too, but from what I can tell Sunak did everything right).
Yes, by and large I was a supporter of the Coalition. That doesn't make me blind to the sleaze, and I think that the key events were under Tory control, and/or after 2015.
The lack of wanting to own the coalition record in government is why the Lib Dems got their arses hand to them by the electorate.
This is one of those weird statements that I see repeated as fact a lot.
Simply going into coalition with the Tories broke the Lib Dems in the eyes of many voters.
In 2010 they got 18.9% of the vote in Scotland, in 2011 they got 8% - losing over half their vote. This was not down to failing to own their record in government.
But it explains why they are still nailed to the floor
The anti-Tory tendency still hates them but they can’t win the soft Tories over if they aren’t proud of the coalition.
I should be a natural target for the Lib Dem’s. But they don’t even try.
The whole coalition thing is weird. After years they got in a position where they could do a bit of what they campaigned for, and be in a bit of power - which is why you stand in elections. They compromise on various policies - that's what coalitions are all about and should put themselves in a position to build on that.
Instead their own supporters turn on them for doing compromise politics, blame them for not fulfilling their election manifesto when they are a small minority, and destroy a once respectable party.
Good people like Clegg and Laws self destruct/get obliterated, and their voters come across as a pathetic shower of losers who vote against their own party because they won something. They seem no better than the Labour left. Any Liberal with sense has little choice now but to join the liberal/libertarian/one nation (according to taste) section of the Tories.
The Lib Dems sold out far too cheaply and reneged on a pledge.
If you draw a significant portion of support from students don't fuck with the students.
It is pretty simple politics.
The Conservative equivalent would have been to renege on the Triple-Lock as soon as they took power, and then freeze the state pension in real-terms for the whole of the parliament.
You’re better off stacking shelves at Morrison’s than caring for older and disabled people, and that’s not good enough for our country. #COVID19 has exposed the urgent need to reform staff pay, terms & conditions. My question in Parliament today...."
This seems a far bigger scandal to me than an inflation based pay rise for nurses.
Whilst I'd be in favour of paying nurses more if we can afford it (we probably cant), imo we must find more money to pay care staff appropriately, which means significant year on year increases maintained over several years.
Liz 4% Kendall sneering at "shelf stackers" not a good look either.
Does she really even think there is a job called that,and after shop workers have risked their lives too to keep the shops open why sneer at them.
Typical out of touch Politician or just terrible wording from a talentless individual?
I think those having a go at Liz Kendall, are those who would be having a go at er anyway, and the outrage is confected. It is not a sneer imo.
Shelf stacker is still a relevant term, though in some places it has been 'remanufactured' as "Night Replenishment Assistant".
But isn't one lesson from covid that "shelf stackers" or "Night replenishment assistant" are actually really important to us and undervalued in society just like care workers?
I would expect a Labour position to understand this and champion their cause, not belittle their contribution.
Yes - I'd go some way with that.
However, how much should wages be set by "I think it is worth X" or the market rate?
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Simple answer is that, in the short term, populism is popular. Look at Peron. Look at Berlusconi. It just tends to leave countries that are governed according to populism in a bad way, because the money runs out. And then the countries involved have a choice between "neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners" or something worse.
Unless you know of an exception. Scholar that you are.
I like to think of populism as "simple answers to complex questions".
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Starmer has a lot more integrity than Johnson, I suspect. Crucially, he will deal with miscreants ruthlessly - anybody caught with their hand in the till or similar will be out. I doubt Jenrick or Patel would have survived had Starmer been their leader. This means nothing at the moment, but over the next three years I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to be seen by the public as an important difference in leadership.
I think that's probably true, but it doesn't matter much if his values, and those of his party, are not shared by the public.
True, but opinions change, and during this pandemic they change quickly. Six months ago Johnson's figures were dire, now he is King Dick. His, and the Conservatives support, like Labour's last year, appears soft.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Simple answer is that, in the short term, populism is popular. Look at Peron. Look at Berlusconi. It just tends to leave countries that are governed according to populism in a bad way, because the money runs out. And then the countries involved have a choice between "neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners" or something worse.
Unless you know of an exception. Scholar that you are.
I like to think of populism as "simple answers to complex questions".
I think that a rather simple answer to a complex question...🤔
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
You’re better off stacking shelves at Morrison’s than caring for older and disabled people, and that’s not good enough for our country. #COVID19 has exposed the urgent need to reform staff pay, terms & conditions. My question in Parliament today...."
This seems a far bigger scandal to me than an inflation based pay rise for nurses.
Whilst I'd be in favour of paying nurses more if we can afford it (we probably cant), imo we must find more money to pay care staff appropriately, which means significant year on year increases maintained over several years.
Liz 4% Kendall sneering at "shelf stackers" not a good look either.
Does she really even think there is a job called that,and after shop workers have risked their lives too to keep the shops open why sneer at them.
Typical out of touch Politician or just terrible wording from a talentless individual?
I think those having a go at Liz Kendall, are those who would be having a go at er anyway, and the outrage is confected. It is not a sneer imo.
Shelf stacker is still a relevant term, though in some places it has been 'remanufactured' as "Night Replenishment Assistant".
But isn't one lesson from covid that "shelf stackers" or "Night replenishment assistant" are actually really important to us and undervalued in society just like care workers?
I would expect a Labour position to understand this and champion their cause, not belittle their contribution.
Yes - I'd go some way with that.
However, how much should wages be set by "I think it is worth X" and the market rate?
Mostly, but lets not pretend our economy is a pure free market. Minimum wage has made a huge difference in many jobs and 1 in 6 jobs pay is set by the govt, which has a knock on impact onto the private sector.
Labour are right to promote the cause of care workers, but not just ethically wrong to do it by knocking supermarket workers, but tactically wrong as well. There are a lot of voters who are supermarket workers.
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Good evening from Sheffield. My first trip to England in 2 months and my first business trip away in 7 months, Its surreal - and I used to be away at least once a week
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Nah, I'm not in favour of the death penalty.
They should have sent Charles I to work in Ireland as a farm labourer.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
I thought you were a fan of the coalition government? That's who's bent, not the current administration (they might be too, but from what I can tell Sunak did everything right).
Yes, by and large I was a supporter of the Coalition. That doesn't make me blind to the sleaze, and I think that the key events were under Tory control, and/or after 2015.
The lack of wanting to own the coalition record in government is why the Lib Dems got their arses hand to them by the electorate.
This is one of those weird statements that I see repeated as fact a lot.
Simply going into coalition with the Tories broke the Lib Dems in the eyes of many voters.
In 2010 they got 18.9% of the vote in Scotland, in 2011 they got 8% - losing over half their vote. This was not down to failing to own their record in government.
But it explains why they are still nailed to the floor
The anti-Tory tendency still hates them but they can’t win the soft Tories over if they aren’t proud of the coalition.
I should be a natural target for the Lib Dem’s. But they don’t even try.
The whole coalition thing is weird. After years they got in a position where they could do a bit of what they campaigned for, and be in a bit of power - which is why you stand in elections. They compromise on various policies - that's what coalitions are all about and should put themselves in a position to build on that.
Instead their own supporters turn on them for doing compromise politics, blame them for not fulfilling their election manifesto when they are a small minority, and destroy a once respectable party.
Good people like Clegg and Laws self destruct/get obliterated, and their voters come across as a pathetic shower of losers who vote against their own party because they won something. They seem no better than the Labour left. Any Liberal with sense has little choice now but to join the liberal/libertarian/one nation (according to taste) section of the Tories.
The Lib Dems sold out far too cheaply and reneged on a pledge.
If you draw a significant portion of support from students don't fuck with the students.
It is pretty simple politics.
However, the Liberals once had a sort of image for attracting thoughtful slightly selfless voters who understood things, including understanding the meaning of coalition and compromise. Students as a body are going to be people who can operate at a graduate level of intellect. Well, the abandonment of the Liberals by these good people certainly trashed that image.
And they did not renege on a pledge - if you are thinking of tuition fees. The Liberals stood on a platform for government and failed to win the election. Pledges at that point cannot mean anything. You run on a platform and you don't win. You then negotiate and compromise. It isn't rocket science.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Starmer has a lot more integrity than Johnson, I suspect. Crucially, he will deal with miscreants ruthlessly - anybody caught with their hand in the till or similar will be out. I doubt Jenrick or Patel would have survived had Starmer been their leader. This means nothing at the moment, but over the next three years I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to be seen by the public as an important difference in leadership.
I think that's probably true, but it doesn't matter much if his values, and those of his party, are not shared by the public.
True, but opinions change, and during this pandemic they change quickly. Six months ago Johnson's figures were dire, now he is King Dick. His, and the Conservatives support, like Labour's last year, appears soft.
I don't think the Conservative voting base is particularly wedded to the Conservatives but, they are to a party that is right of centre and shares their values.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Taxpayers haven’t yet got the bill for all these favours , but when it comes people are not going to be happy.
I'm not excusing sleaze here - I hate the chumocracy and incipient low-level corruption of this administration, which shames this country, and I think it comes from the top - but it's a hygiene factor as far as the electorate are concerned.
It makes hastens an unpopular Government to its grave, when it's already on its way out, but in and of itself it does not.
Why? Because voters will put who they think will best defend their economic and social wellbeing first.
The voters, right now, are correctly giving the government credit for vaccines and for delivering Brexit.
But we don't know what the next three years will bring. It could be that - two years from now - the UK enters a painful recession. In which case, suddenly, "corruption" will be cast into sharp relief.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Nah, I'm not in favour of the death penalty.
They should have sent Charles I to work in Ireland as a farm labourer.
I was thinking more just the gumption of a lawyer taking on the role to prosecute the Head of State, invented process or not - no one beyond justice and all that.
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Or, it's a real insight into Andrew.
I blame the parents.
Are you being controversial, or am I barking up the wrong tree somewhere between Fareham and Portsmouth?
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
He's being a fool trying to bugger with status at a Private Funeral.
Just imagine if the Duchess of Sussex pulled a stunt like this at the funeral.
But her critics are silent/not dropping so much crap on him.
Can't imagine why.
Everyone knows that Andrew is a shit. His apporval rating is 2 - 6%.
But why doesn't he attract the opprobrium on here and other places that the Duchess of Sussex does?
Because he is son of the Queen. Attack him, and you attack the whole institution. Being a Royal is not about popularity, or character, or being deserving, it is purely about genes and birth order. Andrew has the same two parents as the next King.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
In the good old days if you just survived long enough once you were a Captain RN (rank, rather than role) you ended up an admiral whether or not on half pay for the last 40 years. However HRH is only Commander RN and that didn't count even then.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Although he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet without a murmur of protest. He’s an opportunist
I always think Starmer would have fit in well in the cast of The Death of Stalin.
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Or, it's a real insight into Andrew.
I blame the parents.
Are you being controversial, or am I barking up the wrong tree somewhere between Fareham and Portsmouth?
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Nah, I'm not in favour of the death penalty.
They should have sent Charles I to work in Ireland as a farm labourer.
I was thinking more just the gumption of a lawyer taking on the role to prosecute the Head of State, invented process or not - no one beyond justice and all that.
There is that, I shall add that book to my reading listening.
Reclaiming over a billion pounds a month NET and increasing annually in membership fees we no longer need to pay?
Taking back control of our laws, set by our Parliament to suit us?
Signing new trade deals with the rest of the world that make up the majority of our trade already?
Joining the CPTPP which is not just a faster growing trade organisation than the EU, but will also be once we join a larger trade organisation than the EU itself - and will come on top of a zero tariff/zero quota deal with the EU?
That sort of thing? Those of us who aren't stuck in the past can see the benefits even if you haven't caught up yet.
1. Dwarfed by the massive increased red tape costs (and you've forgotten the ongoing payments to the EU)
2. Taking back control to the extent that the government can't authorise the sale of a bag of seed potatoes from one part of our own country to another. Yeah, wonderful.
3. Signing trade deals is a good thing, yes, compared with not doing so, but they only replicate what we already had.
4. No-one, not a single person on this earth who has looked at joining CPTPP in any detail thinks that (if indeed we do join) it will make any noticeable difference at all, certainly nothing like enough to compensate for the catastrophic increase in costs and non-tariff barriers Boris has created.
1a. The ongoing payments to the EU are miniscule in comparison and are from liabilities accrued during membership. The notion we should continue accruing liabilities because we had some is rather perverse so do you really mean that?
1b. As for the red tape costs I'll say [Citation Needed] that they dwarf the membership costs please. Plus while the red tape costs are far from ideal at least a significant chunk of them are paying people in this country to certify forms etc who will then circulate the money domestically as opposed to abroad.
2. I don't care about Northern Ireland. Not many do. Not ideal but domestic stuff is more important.
3. Simply wrong, we are negotiating new deals that we did not have before.
4. Disagreed. Plus it's only one example of many.
Hang-on. Isn't NI domestic? Or are you truly a Little Englander?
I'm truly English.
Up to you whether you want to consider that "little" or not.
THE Northern Ireland Office and the RUC have declined to comment on a report that Northern civil servants and the police have been denied access to confidential Whitehall files relating to the North.
The deputy leader of the DUP, Mr Peter Robinson, said if certain files were shielded from Northern civil servants and the RUC, it indicated that the British government was pursuing a secret agenda on the North.
He was reacting to a report in the London Independent which said that after direct rule was introduced in 1972, the British government replaced the classification, "UK Eyes Only" with a further restriction limiting certain files to British eyes only.
The "UK Eyes Only" classification meant the withholding of secret information from allies like the US, but the added refinement applied to Northern civil servants and senior RUC personnel, the newspaper reported.
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Or, it's a real insight into Andrew.
I blame the parents.
Are you being controversial, or am I barking up the wrong tree somewhere between Fareham and Portsmouth?
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Or, it's a real insight into Andrew.
I blame the parents.
Are you being controversial, or am I barking up the wrong tree somewhere between Fareham and Portsmouth?
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
He's being a fool trying to bugger with status at a Private Funeral.
Just imagine if the Duchess of Sussex pulled a stunt like this at the funeral.
But her critics are silent/not dropping so much crap on him.
Can't imagine why.
Everyone knows that Andrew is a shit. His apporval rating is 2 - 6%.
But why doesn't he attract the opprobrium on here and other places that the Duchess of Sussex does?
I think he did at the time. It was pretty non-stop on here.
But, Andrew didn't directly attack the institution or his family.
I know, he committed the minor transgression of maintaining a friendship with a convicted nonce, which is obviously isn't as bad as criticising the Royal family.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Starmer has a lot more integrity than Johnson, I suspect. Crucially, he will deal with miscreants ruthlessly - anybody caught with their hand in the till or similar will be out. I doubt Jenrick or Patel would have survived had Starmer been their leader. This means nothing at the moment, but over the next three years I wouldn't be surprised if it comes to be seen by the public as an important difference in leadership.
I think that's probably true, but it doesn't matter much if his values, and those of his party, are not shared by the public.
True, but opinions change, and during this pandemic they change quickly. Six months ago Johnson's figures were dire, now he is King Dick. His, and the Conservatives support, like Labour's last year, appears soft.
I don't think the Conservative voting base is particularly wedded to the Conservatives but, they are to a party that is right of centre and shares their values.
At present the key element of the voting base is wedded to Johnson, and they share his perceived values. I am not sure they necessarily associate him with Conservatism/Toryism.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Nah, I'm not in favour of the death penalty.
They should have sent Charles I to work in Ireland as a farm labourer.
I was thinking more just the gumption of a lawyer taking on the role to prosecute the Head of State, invented process or not - no one beyond justice and all that.
There is that, I shall add that book to my reading listening.
I do think John Cook would have fitted in with a lot of the politically inclined today.
We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Simple answer is that, in the short term, populism is popular. Look at Peron. Look at Berlusconi. It just tends to leave countries that are governed according to populism in a bad way, because the money runs out. And then the countries involved have a choice between "neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners" or something worse.
Unless you know of an exception. Scholar that you are.
I like to think of populism as "simple answers to complex questions".
Three Word Slogans, for example.
OK, that's a cheapish shot, but this government is all about the idea that problems have simple answers. And a lot of real life isn't like that.
Take the most unambiguous failure that rapidly fed through to the opinion polls; last year's exam grades fiasco. On a national level, holding the overall results to a similar profile to the previous year's wasn't that dumb. It's just that it created huge anomalies at the level of schools, colleges and individuals, which were too complicated to solve. (BTW this year looks like being a similarly bad car crash, just with the opportunity to blame schools rather then Whitehall.)
Full-on populism is a brilliant way to win power, but a calamitous way to exercise it. Most politicians sort of recognise this in advance, which is why they don't go down that path. The only questions are how long it takes for the current generation of pols to learn the lesson, and what happens then.
The weather this evening was too cold for a lot of potential pub drinkers from what I saw.
I went to the pub earlier. The beer was great but the experience was mediocre and the food was shit.
Refused the NHS app (as I always do) but left my name and number. It was in a marquee (so no sun) but I get why they did it so don't mind. Bit chilly - so I had my coat on.
The house burger tasted like a frozen patty they'd bought from Iceland and stuck in the oven for 20 minutes. Chips were ok though.
Will I go again? Sure I will. They've had a rough time and need the support - so I will suck it up and ignore it. But I'll be drinking more and asking for a recommendation before ordering next time.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
So you are saying he busts crims without favour? That's probably the most positive thing said about him on here for weeks.
As DPP, one would hope so. The point is that Labour sleaze is as prevalent as the Tory type, and voters don't distinguish, so the impact on voting intention is minimal.
Nah, it is sleaze in government that bothers them. "Chuck 'em out, the scoundrels" applies to governments not oppositions.
So if, according to you, the government is so very sleazy, why do the voters appear not to give a toss about it?
Simple answer is that, in the short term, populism is popular. Look at Peron. Look at Berlusconi. It just tends to leave countries that are governed according to populism in a bad way, because the money runs out. And then the countries involved have a choice between "neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners" or something worse.
Unless you know of an exception. Scholar that you are.
I honestly don't even know where to begin with such a simpleminded definition of populism. According to the one you use, New Labour fits the pattern perfectly, leaving the country in a bad way with the money having run out and being forced into 'neoliberal pseudo-democracy plus austerity for really slow learners'.
So are New Labour now also to be consider much-despised populists, like Boris? Or will you shift your silly definition to exclude them? Perhaps you could provide a handy list of which governments you consider populist and which not, so that we don't have to waste our time.
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Or, it's a real insight into Andrew.
I blame the parents.
Are you being controversial, or am I barking up the wrong tree somewhere between Fareham and Portsmouth?
Portchester?!
Come to think of it, that is indeed between Fareham and Portsmouth.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Sounds interesting, one of my ancestors was a regicide.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Time to ditch the lot of it. Tony Benn was absolutely right - the whole point of all this nonsense is to convey the message to the public that these people are so "important" that they must be deferred to and so that nobody will challenge their privileges.
There are plenty of valid arguments to be made in favour of republicanism, but practically no public interest in actually implementing it.
I am not sure about Andrew. He seems to have been very foolish.. Best to keep.out of the limelight,.. just like Ms Markle should. I am actually angrier with Harry for allowing the broadcast to happen.
Why on earth do you give a toss?
I believe in the Monarchy. I am appalled at the behaviour of Harry and Meghan, just as I was when Charles and Diana were fighting in the media. No good will come of it.
Can you direct me towards your posts repeatedly criticising the behaviour of Prince Andrew.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
I feel like you would very much approve of the book I just had delivered today. The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Nah, I'm not in favour of the death penalty.
They should have sent Charles I to work in Ireland as a farm labourer.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
I'm not disagreeing with you - I don't think it's a slam dunk at all. As I said in my post, "the public don't care".
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
I think the Greensill affair will go the way of Salmond, bogged down in detail that bores the public. It will leave behind a stink but not a fatal one.
We just expect politicians to shovel money to their mates nowadays. We are in the age of a gilded kleptocracy, which is pretty much where populist governments wind up.
Tory sleaze proved to be a winner for LAB at the end of the Major government. And Starmer did well today getting that message across.
The trouble is that by the end of the last Labour government it was largely Labour MPs being charged and imprisoned for fraud.
And do you know who charged them?
Keir Starmer.
A feather in his cap then.
This looks different to previous misdemeanors like Jenrick and the pornographer. It ties some of the earlier accusations against the Johnson Government together. Johnson's popularity is riding high at present, and he seems content for Cameron to take the fall, however when the government starts to struggle, which is inevitable, and another minor scandal hits the headlines, this one will be dredged up, and its effect will gain traction.
Yes, it is a feather in his cap (as was his suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the party) and he clearly has ethical integrity.
But, can he transform the whole of Labour?
Although he served in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet without a murmur of protest. He’s an opportunist
My take on the polls is that there is a lot of antipathy to Labour which is buoying the Tory vote. Circumstances and the actions of the Tories could be so dire that enough of the antipathetic will switch or not vote but I think things would have to become very bad for a Labour majority. Out of Corbynism into Woke is the great trap for Labour. I also think Labour's lead amongst the educated middle class might be very soft if they adopt a radical economic programme that would threaten their comfortable lifestyles. Objectively there is a great opportunity arising for LDs or even a new party.
"Reeves too was having the time of her life, landing punch after punch on the government. On Cameron’s semi-apology over Greensill, she was damning: “He’s sorry he got caught, and he’s sorry his shares are now worthless.” "
Andrew wanting to be an "Admiral" at a private funeral is on one hand absurd, but it is on another level a real insight into what life is like at court. To these people this sort of frippery and baubles actually matters. Who wears what Ruritanian sash, who has precedence in the receiving line, even who gets served tea first, these things are seriously fought over.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Given that the one thing Andrew is respected for is his service in the Falklands he would look more dignified if he wore the uniform of the rank he earned rather than demand some higher rank be given.
It's revealing that the PB Tories on here tonight aren't really denying that the government is a sleazy chumocracy - the defence seems to be "fair enough, but Labour are worse".
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
No defence, as my posts have shown - I've simply contested that I don't think it'll be the slam dunk in changing voters behaviour that you think it will.
Absolutely - nobody cares. Politics has sunk so low that MPs and ex-MPs being on the take is completely priced in. The surprise is if they aren't. I have heard a robust defence of "name a Labour ex-minister in it as deep as Cameron". True - can't think of one. But how about union officials trousering miners housing money? Or the epic planning fun that appears to have gone on between Unite and Labour councillors in Liverpool.
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
Few give a monkeys whether you are prepared to "forgive" the Royal Family" It is yet another attempt to grab the limelight.
Kindly go away and annoy someone else (as you surely will).
Thank you
SR2
You seem obsessed with The Duchess of Sussex.
What do you make of this though?
PRINCE Andrew reportedly told the Queen he wished to dress in Admiral uniform for Prince Philip's funeral - despite deferring the title after the Jeffrey Epstein sex scandal.
The Duke of York, who stepped back from public duties over his friendship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein 18 months ago, was made an honorary Vice-Admiral in the Royal Navy on his 55th birthday in 2015.
Unbelievable. In what dark recess of his tiny brain does Andrew think he merits the uniform of Admiral?
I think he's currently entitled to Vice Admiral as honorary rank (Senior Royal?). Due to his own service it is Commander. Was due for Admiral on is 60th Birthday but it got sat on.
Comments
Unless you know of an exception. Scholar that you are.
But her critics are silent/not dropping so much crap on him.
Can't imagine why.
The anti-Tory tendency still hates them but they can’t win the soft Tories over if they aren’t proud of the coalition.
I should be a natural target for the Lib Dem’s. But they don’t even try.
PM’s deputy chief of staff Simone Finn retained 35% ownership of company that advises foreign Government… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1382426505788203009
It makes hastens an unpopular Government to its grave, when it's already on its way out, but in and of itself it does not.
Why? Because voters will put who they think will best defend their economic and social wellbeing first.
I would expect a Labour position to understand this and champion their cause, not belittle their contribution.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1382425800767643649?s=19
The trouble is that to be a leader you have to take risks and, well, lead.
Any poll without Brian Rose in poll position isn't worth the paper it's not written on.
Alistair Graham, former head of standards committee, said this is serious potential conflict
‘While working for PM there is a risk she is looking over her shoulder at how her company is prospering’
https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1382428979513135105
Both the US and the UK have five former Heads of Government currently. In the US, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump while in the UK we have Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May.
In the US, ex-Presidents seem to have a certain mystique - almost impervious to criticism, they are able to work together and on various issues. Some may have the ear of the current WH incumbent, others won't, Carter, for example, for all his Presidency was a disaster, has done fantastic work with his Habitat for Humanity projects. Clinton worked with George HW Bush in Haiti and George W Bush and Obama have established a firm friendship since the latter left the WH.
Over here, ex-Prime Ministers seem to be treated rather differently - they are expected to stay out of politics and any intervention or comment seems to draw vitriol from nearly all sides. It's as though once they leave No.10 they are deemed failures who have no longer any contribution to make to public life.
Apart from the absurdity of that notion, why should a relatively young man like Cameron (or indeed Blair) not want to do something else with their lives? Are they somehow forbidden to use any of the contacts or influence they once enjoyed? Why should they, like the Royal Family, be forbidden from having opinions?
I think there's a serious and proper debate to be had about the role of the ex-Prime Minister and how we could and indeed should constructively use the abilities they doubtless have for the greater good?
There must be life after the autobiography.
I can see how incomers with more relaxed manners find it hostile and uncomfortable.
Instead their own supporters turn on them for doing compromise politics, blame them for not fulfilling their election manifesto when they are a small minority, and destroy a once respectable party.
Good people like Clegg and Laws self destruct/get obliterated, and their voters come across as a pathetic shower of losers who vote against their own party because they won something. They seem no better than the Labour left. Any Liberal with sense has little choice now but to join the liberal/libertarian/one nation (according to taste) section of the Tories.
His behaviour has done more damage to the monarchy than the Sussexes.
If you draw a significant portion of support from students don't fuck with the students.
It is pretty simple politics.
However, how much should wages be set by "I think it is worth X" or the market rate?
Why do professional footballers lean back so often when shooting
Or a pretentious twat.
The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man who sent Charles I to the Scaffold
Labour are right to promote the cause of care workers, but not just ethically wrong to do it by knocking supermarket workers, but tactically wrong as well. There are a lot of voters who are supermarket workers.
https://youtu.be/TpJ_IAUs8nI?t=221
They should have sent Charles I to work in Ireland as a farm labourer.
And they did not renege on a pledge - if you are thinking of tuition fees. The Liberals stood on a platform for government and failed to win the election. Pledges at that point cannot mean anything. You run on a platform and you don't win. You then negotiate and compromise. It isn't rocket science.
But we don't know what the next three years will bring. It could be that - two years from now - the UK enters a painful recession. In which case, suddenly, "corruption" will be cast into sharp relief.
And when he did, it didn't work out too well for him.
But, Andrew didn't directly attack the institution or his family.
Never!
Reminds me of this:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/north-files-kept-from-ruc-civil-service-report-says-1.85647
THE Northern Ireland Office and the RUC have declined to comment on a report that Northern civil servants and the police have been denied access to confidential Whitehall files relating to the North.
The deputy leader of the DUP, Mr Peter Robinson, said if certain files were shielded from Northern civil servants and the RUC, it indicated that the British government was pursuing a secret agenda on the North.
He was reacting to a report in the London Independent which said that after direct rule was introduced in 1972, the British government replaced the classification, "UK Eyes Only" with a further restriction limiting certain files to British eyes only.
The "UK Eyes Only" classification meant the withholding of secret information from allies like the US, but the added refinement applied to Northern civil servants and senior RUC personnel, the newspaper reported.
Apart from being pretty depressing that because the public don't care it's not seen as a concern, I'm not sure it's an election winning slogan:
Vote Conservative - not as sleazy and corrupt as Labour would be if you gave them the chance.
We fought for the public good and would have enfranchised the people and secured the welfare of the whole groaning creation, if the nation had not more delighted in servitude than in freedom
OK, that's a cheapish shot, but this government is all about the idea that problems have simple answers. And a lot of real life isn't like that.
Take the most unambiguous failure that rapidly fed through to the opinion polls; last year's exam grades fiasco. On a national level, holding the overall results to a similar profile to the previous year's wasn't that dumb. It's just that it created huge anomalies at the level of schools, colleges and individuals, which were too complicated to solve. (BTW this year looks like being a similarly bad car crash, just with the opportunity to blame schools rather then Whitehall.)
Full-on populism is a brilliant way to win power, but a calamitous way to exercise it. Most politicians sort of recognise this in advance, which is why they don't go down that path. The only questions are how long it takes for the current generation of pols to learn the lesson, and what happens then.
Refused the NHS app (as I always do) but left my name and number. It was in a marquee (so no sun) but I get why they did it so don't mind. Bit chilly - so I had my coat on.
The house burger tasted like a frozen patty they'd bought from Iceland and stuck in the oven for 20 minutes. Chips were ok though.
Will I go again? Sure I will. They've had a rough time and need the support - so I will suck it up and ignore it. But I'll be drinking more and asking for a recommendation before ordering next time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2ObYOA8bd0
So are New Labour now also to be consider much-despised populists, like Boris? Or will you shift your silly definition to exclude them? Perhaps you could provide a handy list of which governments you consider populist and which not, so that we don't have to waste our time.
- Centaur partying?
"Reeves too was having the time of her life, landing punch after punch on the government. On Cameron’s semi-apology over Greensill, she was damning: “He’s sorry he got caught, and he’s sorry his shares are now worthless.” "
https://thecritic.co.uk/ooops-dave-did-it-again/
However, in Scotland there is an element of slam dunk. That wassock Ross tried to portray the SNP as bent so vote Tory to remove impropriety. Laughable and stupid, the Tories are fading away as quickly as Ruth Davidson scuttles off to the ranks of the unelected,