politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Palace is laying the groundwork for a Regency
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Palace is laying the groundwork for a Regency
The beauty of the Commonwealth lies in its pointlessness. Far from being a hindrance, the fact that it doesn’t have a purpose is a feature, not a bug. No-one is being swept along by ‘the Project’ and rarely does anyone expect anything from the two-yearly get-togethers – and that lack of clear agenda, combined with an informal atmosphere with leaders parted from advisors and officials, is what can create the space to nudge international discussions on one topic or another in a positive way – such as the focus today on addressing poor vision among the world’s poor. The meetings are in that sense rather like a working funeral, except without the need for a death.
Comments
-
Thanks David, and god save the queen!0
-
God has the time now that she has sorted out North Korea, which has announced a cessation of nuclear and missile testing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-438464880 -
Meanwhile in America, the Democrats are suing Russia, the Trump campaign and Wikileaks for conspiring to disrupt the 2016 presidential election.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43844253
The Washington Post says this tactic was previously used during Watergate (and $750,000 damages was paid the day Nixon left office).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/democratic-party-files-lawsuit-alleging-russia-the-trump-campaign-and-wikileaks-conspired-to-disrupt-the-2016-campaign/2018/04/20/befe8364-4418-11e8-8569-26fda6b404c7_story.html0 -
If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.0 -
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
0 -
For betting purposes, a joint award for Trump, Kim and Xi of China seems most likely, assuming a deal is reached.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.0 -
DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
Would make a change from Obama's token prize, given he was nominated just days after taking office.0 -
Interesting thread - another consideration is Charles attendance at the State Opening of Parliament - while he has done it many times before - and most recently stood in for Prince Philip who was indisposed - in 2013 it sparked speculation along similar lines:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-224501630 -
That utterly devalued the 'peace' prize. It should be awarded for achievements, not because someone has been elected.RobD said:DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
Would make a change from Obama's token prize, given he was nominated just days after taking office.
It should also be awarded after a few years, once situations have calmed down and the reality of the peace can be seen.0 -
Obama's award did rather seem like the Nobel Prize for not being George W Bush but on the other hand, the Peace prize has often been given for aspiration rather than lasting achievement; the Northern Ireland peace women being a local example.JosiasJessop said:
That utterly devalued the 'peace' prize. It should be awarded for achievements, not because someone has been elected.RobD said:DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
Would make a change from Obama's token prize, given he was nominated just days after taking office.
It should also be awarded after a few years, once situations have calmed down and the reality of the peace can be seen.0 -
If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
Obama got one without deserving it.
I wonder why?0 -
Well, it is hard to give a definitive answer to what is mere speculation but if that were the case, then the view might have been taken that the decisive player was Xi since, for the first time, China imposed sanctions which left NK isolated. Or that this was always Kim's end game. Or that Trump's threat of retaliation for attack played no part since it was merely a statement of the bleeding obvious: they'd retaliate against Canada too if that country started lobbing nuclear missiles south.Charles said:
If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
Obama got one without deserving it.
I wonder why?0 -
I’m sure they will give excuses. The real reason is the Nobel committees are intensely political and not fit for purpose.DecrepitJohnL said:
Well, it is hard to give a definitive answer to what is mere speculation but if that were the case, then the view might have been taken that the decisive player was Xi since, for the first time, China imposed sanctions which left NK isolated. Or that this was always Kim's end game. Or that Trump's threat of retaliation for attack played no part since it was merely a statement of the bleeding obvious: they'd retaliate against Canada too if that country started lobbing nuclear missiles south.Charles said:
If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
Obama got one without deserving it.
I wonder why?0 -
As DecrepitJohnL points out it really was the 'not George Bush' prize - winning by 'harnessing the power of social media - before that became a bad thing, when the wrong people won with it....Charles said:
Obama got one without deserving it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
Trump's successor on the other hand will probably be a dead cert.....0 -
Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)0 -
Good morning, everyone.
An intriguing suggestion, Mr. Herdson.
Tennis: yesterday, 3/4 tips failed, although one was just a tie-break away from coming off and would've put me green. So, red, but not quite idiotically red.
Edited extra bit: there's a Ladbrokes special, 3.25 on Ricciardo going to Ferrari next year. Personally, not tempted. Short odds for a potential payout months down the line, and I think Mercedes would be a likelier shift, if he does move.0 -
The peace committee, yes. The science ones often give justified prizes IMO. Literature I'm less sure about, then again I'm a philistine when it comes to that topic - I even enjoyed one of SeanT's books ...Charles said:
I’m sure they will give excuses. The real reason is the Nobel committees are intensely political and not fit for purpose.DecrepitJohnL said:
Well, it is hard to give a definitive answer to what is mere speculation but if that were the case, then the view might have been taken that the decisive player was Xi since, for the first time, China imposed sanctions which left NK isolated. Or that this was always Kim's end game. Or that Trump's threat of retaliation for attack played no part since it was merely a statement of the bleeding obvious: they'd retaliate against Canada too if that country started lobbing nuclear missiles south.Charles said:
If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
Obama got one without deserving it.
I wonder why?
0 -
In an update on very weird news from last year, Allison Mack (Chloe from Smallville) has been charged with sex trafficking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-438462430
-
Amusing anecdote about the Prince Regent.
It is said that on one occasion the radical journalist and MP John Wilkes was sitting next to the then Prince of Wales at dinner, when suddenly and without apparent reason he stood up and proposed a toast - 'To the health of his Majesty King George III!'
Everyone responded, although Prinny rather reluctantly. After they had sat down again he turned to Wilkes and said, 'Tell me, Mr Wilkes, how long have you taken an interest in my dear father's health?'
'Why, since I had the pleasure of Your Royal Highness' acquaintance!' replied Wilkes.
I have a feeling a large number of us - except TSE of course - would have a similar reaction to the thought of Charles as Head of State, or even as regent.0 -
Mr. Doethur, a possibility, besides workload and old age, could be that the Queen wants to see how Charles acts in such a capacity and tell him to shut up about his own opinion if he starts wibbling.0
-
China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
0 -
I assumed they wanted to get in quick before someone shot him.Charles said:
If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
Obama got one without deserving it.
I wonder why?
0 -
It's too late for that. The Queen had a huge advantage in coming to the throne very young before she was widely known as an individual. She therefore hadn't given any opinion on anything and could quite safely keep her lip buttoned. That is something she's developed to an art form. Every Prime Minister has felt able to talk to her freely and she has never once given the slightest public hint of any contrary views, or briefed against them. The tabloid headlines about her views on the EU referendum that caused such a storm were (a) very unusual and (b) seem to have been made up.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Doethur, a possibility, besides workload and old age, could be that the Queen wants to see how Charles acts in such a capacity and tell him to shut up about his own opinion if he starts wibbling.
Charles, having given so many views on so many things, is in a lose-lose situation. If he continues shooting his mouth off, he makes his position untenable, if he doesn't his opinions will still be flung at him and it will be assumed he's hiding them because he wants to hold onto the throne.
(Of course, this hasn't applied to Philip...)0 -
Charles is too slim to be Prince Regent! Interested in architecture though.0
-
From a while back - but a good long read on the day the queen's only higher authority intervenes:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge0 -
I don't know. Prinny was a recognised expert on food and wining. Charles a recognised expert on horticulture and whining...OldKingCole said:Charles is too slim to be Prince Regent! Interested in architecture though.
0 -
Could it be that Kim wants to ensure that he and his regime don't go the way of Saddam/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. He might see that having a workable nuclear weapon would be sufficient to do that.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
So how would a sane deal be worked out? Kim would want the US out of South Korea in exchange for giving up his bomb. Trump would just want Kim to give it up unilaterally. I can't see either of those things happening.
A deal involving no more tests of the bomb or the missiles and a dialling down of anti-US rhetoric in exchange for food aid might be a possibility. Are either of these leaders capable of making any progress or at least not making things worse?0 -
Two thoughts occur to me:CarlottaVance said:From a while back - but a good long read on the day the queen's only higher authority intervenes:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge
1) If the code is meant to be secret, having been leaked to The Grauniad that bit has failed in truly epic fashion. So we may assume the details have had to be changed.
2) if they haven't, should London Bridge ever suffer structural failure the official who informs Theresa May will have to be bloody careful how they phrase the news.0 -
I may be in a minority on this forum, but I don't think the Commonwealth is pointless.
It's a community of nations that share language, history and, largely, common law and systems of Government. It is united as a loose friendly fraternity, with the British monarch as its figurehead.
It may have a soft focus on education, sport and young people - although I suspect, over time, economic and business links will become more important, as will human rights - but it's long-term purpose is clear: the economic/political centre of gravity of the world is moving to Africa and Asia and it will increasing become the non-Chinese international fulcrum of that.
If we want the world to truly continue to develop in the direction of free, liberal democracies that are friendly to, and trade with, one another, then we must continue to engage, in a leading role, with what is a very valuable asset to the sum of humanity that has us as the common link.
Yes, it's not perfect, and there are embarrassing aspects of it too, but I am proud of the Commonwealth and our role in creating it. We should build on it going forwards.0 -
That happened long since with its award to Kissinger.JosiasJessop said:
That utterly devalued the 'peace' prize. It should be awarded for achievements, not because someone has been elected...RobD said:DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
Would make a change from Obama's token prize, given he was nominated just days after taking office.
0 -
And the furniture industry would be delighted.ydoethur said:
I don't know. Prinny was a recognised expert on food and wining. Charles a recognised expert on horticulture and whining...OldKingCole said:Charles is too slim to be Prince Regent! Interested in architecture though.
0 -
I don’t think China is likely to be swayed by such considerations. Probably their primary concern is to prevent Korean reunification.SouthamObserver said:
China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
0 -
Also on topic, yes, The Queen is moving towards being monarch in name only, with effective retirement, and rightly so. No-one has worked harder for longer for our nation than she has - ever.
Philip was the canary down the coal mine, which everyone has accepted, and if she follows the same path then over the next 3 years, by the age of 95, this should have taken place.
I imagine she'd continue to do Christmas broadcasts, she'll still attend religious services, and perhaps the odd armed forces/charitable event/race meeting she chooses to do. The key things she'd need to shed are the red boxes, signing off legislation and the weekly audiences with the PM. I imagine that's a greater burden than any of us imagine.
Leaving aside what instantly pops into my mind when I read "Prince Regent" - Hugh Laurie is the answer, in case you're wondering - I don't know if a Regency Act would be required for that.0 -
Science are good, although economics swayed by prevailing fashion. Literature highly troubled right now (may be @SeanT influenced them). Peace is the one that is broken.JosiasJessop said:
The peace committee, yes. The science ones often give justified prizes IMO. Literature I'm less sure about, then again I'm a philistine when it comes to that topic - I even enjoyed one of SeanT's books ...Charles said:
I’m sure they will give excuses. The real reason is the Nobel committees are intensely political and not fit for purpose.DecrepitJohnL said:
Well, it is hard to give a definitive answer to what is mere speculation but if that were the case, then the view might have been taken that the decisive player was Xi since, for the first time, China imposed sanctions which left NK isolated. Or that this was always Kim's end game. Or that Trump's threat of retaliation for attack played no part since it was merely a statement of the bleeding obvious: they'd retaliate against Canada too if that country started lobbing nuclear missiles south.Charles said:
If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
Obama got one without deserving it.
I wonder why?0 -
If that's true, then Trump - remarkably - has actually achieved something far more than Obama there.SouthamObserver said:
China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.0 -
The current Regency Act dates from 1928 and allows for a regency council of the next X number of adults in line to the throne (I think it's five - that would be Charles and his sons, Andrew and Beatrice) under the leadership of the heir apparent, or if the heir apparent is too young, the spouse of the Sovereign. So yes, for Charles to be sole regent an Act of Parliament would be required.Casino_Royale said:Also on topic, yes, The Queen is moving towards being monarch in name only, with effective retirement, and rightly so. No-one has worked harder for longer for our nation than she has - ever.
Philip was the canary down the coal mine, which everyone has accepted, and if she follows the same path then over the next 3 years, by the age of 95, this should have taken place.
I imagine she'd continue to do Christmas broadcasts, she'll still attend religious services, and perhaps the odd armed forces/charitable event/race meeting she chooses to do. The key things she'd need to shed are the red boxes, signing off legislation and the weekly audiences with the PM. I imagine that's a greater burden than any of us imagine.
Leaving aside what instantly pops into my mind when I read "Prince Regent" - Hugh Laurie is the answer, in case you're wondering - I don't know if a Regency Act would be required for that.0 -
Yes, of course. But reunification is not a major US goal. De-escalation is what matters. Also worth bearing in mind that Xi is consolidating and widening his own power at the expense of the traditional model in China. His relationship with Trump on a personal level is a major issue, too. Trump is drawn to the Alpha male.Nigelb said:
I don’t think China is likely to be swayed by such considerations. Probably their primary concern is to prevent Korean reunification.SouthamObserver said:
China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
0 -
Mr. B, disagree somewhat with that. China's top priority has to be to stop North Korea collapsing and (or due to) mass warfare breaking out. They don't want millions of refugees fleeing over the border and a failed state on their doorstep.
Mr. Observer, indeed, though I fear Xi's made a critical mistake, for the long term, with his change to the succession formula. Even if he's a very wily leader and can either abdicate as he pleases or rules until his demise, the aftermath could be a bloodbath. If he's less fortunate, that could see others trying to bring him down.0 -
O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....0
-
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.0 -
Mr. Root, unfair on Brown.0
-
I see that after bricking themselves over impending armageddon 2 weeks ago, all the fairweather Trumpians have come out of the woodwork to praise his (yet to be franked) statesmanship.
Enjoy the ride lads, it's less than half, or quarter, the way through.0 -
I think Labour's worst leader has to be George Lansbury, and while Corbyn shares some of his weaknesses I don't think he is anywhere near as bad. But any judgement on Corbyn has to be in the context of just how bad a state Labour were in after the 2015 general election. There were serious doubts as to whether it could survive as the main party of opposition. That under Corbyn's watch Labour are now in contention to win next time is a pretty good turnaround. He really can't be that bad.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.0 -
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.0 -
I do not understand why independent countries still wish to accept (at least in form) the tutelage of a governess. If Eire can secede, why don't Australia/India etc? It is even more demeaning for some of these countries to retain a foreign head of state, who is now physically incapable of visiting their territory. The sooner the remaining vestiges of feudal deference and privilege are eliminated from the UK as well as the so-called "British" Commonwealth, the better; this includes the HoL. However, it is desirable to have a non-political head of state, as in Eire.0
-
Don’t forget that a regency gave us Blackadder 3. Given the paucity of good humour around at the moment a regency may prove an excellent investment.0
-
He really canRecidivist said:
I think Labour's worst leader has to be George Lansbury, and while Corbyn shares some of his weaknesses I don't think he is anywhere near as bad. But any judgement on Corbyn has to be in the context of just how bad a state Labour were in after the 2015 general election. There were serious doubts as to whether it could survive as the main party of opposition. That under Corbyn's watch Labour are now in contention to win next time is a pretty good turnaround. He really can't be that bad.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.0 -
To be fair, it would be hard for it to be worse for the NK people.logical_song said:
Could it be that Kim wants to ensure that he and his regime don't go the way of Saddam/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. He might see that having a workable nuclear weapon would be sufficient to do that.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
So how would a sane deal be worked out? Kim would want the US out of South Korea in exchange for giving up his bomb. Trump would just want Kim to give it up unilaterally. I can't see either of those things happening.
A deal involving no more tests of the bomb or the missiles and a dialling down of anti-US rhetoric in exchange for food aid might be a possibility. Are either of these leaders capable of making any progress or at least not making things worse?
So what do the sides want?
NK:
*) To maintain the regime.
*) To unify with the south.
SK:
*) To maintain their success story
*) To unify with the north.
*) Peace.
China:
*) To prevent a war on their doorstep that would be damaging to their international reputation.
*) To prevent the potential of millions of refugees flowing over the border.
*) US troops out of Korea (perhaps in the short term replaced by a.n.other).
US:
*) A foreign policy success that the sainted Obama never came close to.
*) Reduce the costs of maintaining the DMZ.
*) To prevent China extending its influence in the region to SK, and by keeping bases in SK.
If you look at these, there may be a way forward if all sides are adult about it and put the needs of the NK people ahead of their interests (yeah, right). Reunification should be seen very much as a long-term goal.0 -
Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.murali_s said:
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.0 -
Explain?murali_s said:O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....
0 -
He really can be that bad. Making the country defenceless is as bad it gets.0
-
0
-
You may not like it but the vast number of Commonwealth countries value the Commonwealthdaodao said:I do not understand why independent countries still wish to accept (at least in form) the tutelage of a governess. If Eire can secede, why don't Australia/India etc? It is even more demeaning for some of these countries to retain a foreign head of state, who is now physically incapable of visiting their territory. The sooner the remaining vestiges of feudal deference and privilege are eliminated from the UK as well as the so-called "British" Commonwealth, the better; this includes the HoL. However, it is desirable to have a non-political head of state, as in Eire.
0 -
Not really possible. No one alive today will have the same standard of living they could have had in their entire lifetime as a result of his incompetence. They will pay more tax for fewer services.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Root, unfair on Brown.
0 -
+1ydoethur said:Amusing anecdote about the Prince Regent.
It is said that on one occasion the radical journalist and MP John Wilkes was sitting next to the then Prince of Wales at dinner, when suddenly and without apparent reason he stood up and proposed a toast - 'To the health of his Majesty King George III!'
Everyone responded, although Prinny rather reluctantly. After they had sat down again he turned to Wilkes and said, 'Tell me, Mr Wilkes, how long have you taken an interest in my dear father's health?'
'Why, since I had the pleasure of Your Royal Highness' acquaintance!' replied Wilkes.
I have a feeling a large number of us - except TSE of course - would have a similar reaction to the thought of Charles as Head of State, or even as regent.0 -
I was responding to the original assertion by a brainwashed Tory apparatchik. Corbyn (not his greatest fan as you know) has a good chance to be our next PM - he was the star of GE 2017 and yet people still dismiss him - these foolish people are in for a rude awakening.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.murali_s said:
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.0 -
This is the commonwealth that I'd like to see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Britain_Bill
0 -
Not on his current Best PM ratings, he won't....murali_s said:
Corbyn....... will be our next PM.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.0 -
Quite right, omurali_s said:O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....
f course.murali_s said:O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....
We do it so that the Conservatives or Labour can make a clean sweep of all the seats in a ward with a minimum of effort. That is why we do not change it. Pure self-interest.murali_s said:O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....
0 -
Christ, I sincerely hope I'm out of the country when it happens. Sounds intolerable.CarlottaVance said:From a while back - but a good long read on the day the queen's only higher authority intervenes:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge0 -
Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.
Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?
'She's opening the new tram system' she said.
At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.
The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.
"I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said
"It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"0 -
We can perhaps add to that list, for China to see an end to American sanctions, and for North Korea a return of economic aid and industrial development. I doubt NK seriously wants unification with South Korea which would necessarily entail democracy and the end of the Kim dynasty. It will be more impressed by the Chinese model: a one-party state with a strong leader and impressive economic growth.JosiasJessop said:
To be fair, it would be hard for it to be worse for the NK people.logical_song said:
Could it be that Kim wants to ensure that he and his regime don't go the way of Saddam/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. He might see that having a workable nuclear weapon would be sufficient to do that.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
So how would a sane deal be worked out? Kim would want the US out of South Korea in exchange for giving up his bomb. Trump would just want Kim to give it up unilaterally. I can't see either of those things happening.
A deal involving no more tests of the bomb or the missiles and a dialling down of anti-US rhetoric in exchange for food aid might be a possibility. Are either of these leaders capable of making any progress or at least not making things worse?
So what do the sides want?
NK:
*) To maintain the regime.
*) To unify with the south.
SK:
*) To maintain their success story
*) To unify with the north.
*) Peace.
China:
*) To prevent a war on their doorstep that would be damaging to their international reputation.
*) To prevent the potential of millions of refugees flowing over the border.
*) US troops out of Korea (perhaps in the short term replaced by a.n.other).
US:
*) A foreign policy success that the sainted Obama never came close to.
*) Reduce the costs of maintaining the DMZ.
*) To prevent China extending its influence in the region to SK, and by keeping bases in SK.
If you look at these, there may be a way forward if all sides are adult about it and put the needs of the NK people ahead of their interests (yeah, right). Reunification should be seen very much as a long-term goal.0 -
What were the best PM ratings in May 2017 I wonder?CarlottaVance said:
Not on his current Best PM ratings, he won't....murali_s said:
Corbyn....... will be our next PM.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.0 -
Charles. Re. Nobel: Literature highly troubled? Winston Churchill winning in the 1940s, or whenever, was a strange one. But most winners seem to be writers of genuine international stature.0
-
Mr. L, hmm. That is true.
On the other hand, given the choice between Brown returning as PM or Corbyn becoming PM, I'd go for the former without any hesitation.
Corbyn would **** the economy far worse, *and* we've seen how he handles things like anti-Semitism and would approach national security.0 -
Thank you for an interesting thread Herders.
However I believe that a retirement Regency is almost a unlikely as an abdication. Her Majesty would see such a regency as an abrogation, not only of her Coronation Oath which she takes as a lifelong duty to the nation, but also and of her 1947 vow.
Other members of the royal family may retire but they are not the monarch and whilst younger royals will ease the strain of some of her duties, a regency based on an effective use by date is simply outwith of the scope of the Queen's nature.
Coronation Oath :
https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953
Princess Elizabeth's 21st Birthday Vow 1947 - From 5 min 40 sec :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUlToHE_27U0 -
+1, and the seconder of this bill deserves to be the next PM.SandyRentool said:This is the commonwealth that I'd like to see:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Britain_Bill0 -
NOT reunifying is Kim Jong-un's existential goal. He is horrible dictator but he seems brutally rational. Having got North Korea into the club of nuclear powers and created an effective and relatively cheap deterrence to invasion with his nuclear weapons he can concentrate on normalizing international relations and building the economy.SouthamObserver said:
Yes, of course. But reunification is not a major US goal. De-escalation is what matters. Also worth bearing in mind that Xi is consolidating and widening his own power at the expense of the traditional model in China. His relationship with Trump on a personal level is a major issue, too. Trump is drawn to the Alpha male.Nigelb said:
I don’t think China is likely to be swayed by such considerations. Probably their primary concern is to prevent Korean reunification.SouthamObserver said:
China is the key here. Trump’s contribution is in ensuring that the Chinese feel they have more to gain from reining Kim in than they have to lose. It may come down to trade flows.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China's principal strategic aim is to push America out past the "island line" linking Korea to Indonesia via Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines. North Korean sabre rattling complicates that goal.
What South Korea thinks is a bit irrelevant to the power players but China has mainly good relations with that country.0 -
We can perhaps add to that list, for China to see an end to American sanctions, and for North Korea a return of economic aid and industrial development. I doubt NK seriously wants unification with South Korea which would necessarily entail democracy and the end of the Kim dynasty. It will be more impressed by the Chinese model: a one-party state with a strong leader and impressive economic growth.DecrepitJohnL said:To be fair, it would be hard for it to be worse for the NK people.
So what do the sides want?
NK:
*) To maintain the regime.
*) To unify with the south.
SK:
*) To maintain their success story
*) To unify with the north.
*) Peace.
China:
*) To prevent a war on their doorstep that would be damaging to their international reputation.
*) To prevent the potential of millions of refugees flowing over the border.
*) US troops out of Korea (perhaps in the short term replaced by a.n.other).
US:
*) A foreign policy success that the sainted Obama never came close to.
*) Reduce the costs of maintaining the DMZ.
*) To prevent China extending its influence in the region to SK, and by keeping bases in SK.
If you look at these, there may be a way forward if all sides are adult about it and put the needs of the NK people ahead of their interests (yeah, right). Reunification should be seen very much as a long-term goal.
Both sides claim to want reunification - the stumbling block has always been they want reunification under *their* system, not that of the other party. Whilst there is no way to change that immediately, the idea would be to work towards it: for instance by increasing co-operative works like the KIR.0 -
It must have been a joy for you to meet Princess Anne as her father indulged his passion for carriage driving, albeit of the electrical variety ..Roger said:Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.
Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?
'She's opening the new tram system' she said.
At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.
The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.
"I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said
"It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"
0 -
At the end of May, May had a lead of 13 points (it had been higher) - today it's 14......murali_s said:
What were the best PM ratings in May 2017 I wonder?CarlottaVance said:
Not on his current Best PM ratings, he won't....murali_s said:
Corbyn....... will be our next PM.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
Only 72 per cent of present Labour voters say that Mr Corbyn would make the best prime minister, with 27 per cent not sure, while 89 per cent of Tories choose Mrs May. In a sign that Mr Corbyn’s grip on Labour may be weakening, only 58 per cent of people who voted Labour in the general election last year said that they would choose him as the next prime minister.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2d38a936-44e1-11e8-99ea-a5dd07dd144b0 -
I bet that takes you back Jack! Were you one of the guests booming out 'She's got the key to the door...never been 21 before!'JackW said:Thank you for an interesting thread Herders.
However I believe that a retirement Regency is almost a unlikely as an abdication. Her Majesty would see such a regency as an abrogation, not only of her Coronation Oath which she takes as a lifelong duty to the nation, but also and of her 1947 vow.
Other members of the royal family may retire but they are not the monarch and whilst younger royals will ease the strain of some of her duties, a regency based on an effective use by date is simply outwith of the scope of the Queen's nature.
Coronation Oath :
https://www.royal.uk/coronation-oath-2-june-1953
Princess Elizabeth's 21st Birthday Vow 1947 - From 5 min 40 sec :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUlToHE_27U0 -
Surely up to them, rather than you, and clearly most don’t share your feelings.daodao said:I do not understand why independent countries still wish to accept (at least in form) the tutelage of a governess. If Eire can secede, why don't Australia/India etc? It is even more demeaning for some of these countries to retain a foreign head of state, who is now physically incapable of visiting their territory. The sooner the remaining vestiges of feudal deference and privilege are eliminated from the UK as well as the so-called "British" Commonwealth, the better; this includes the HoL. However, it is desirable to have a non-political head of state, as in Eire.
0 -
Interesting Yougov. Possibly reflects a couple of bad weeks for Labour and it becoming obvious again just how divided the Parliamentary party is. Although Windrush is bad on a personal level for those affected it has no personal impact on most voters and May will benefit from heartfelt apology and clear commitment to quick resolution of issues.0
-
The list ought also to include China’s strong and long standing animus against reunification. They want N Korea as a buffer state, in much the same way Russia is neuralgic about nations bordering it having closer ties with the EU or NATO.JosiasJessop said:
To be fair, it would be hard for it to be worse for the NK people.logical_song said:
Could it be that Kim wants to ensure that he and his regime don't go the way of Saddam/Iraq and Gaddafi/Libya. He might see that having a workable nuclear weapon would be sufficient to do that.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
So how would a sane deal be worked out?
So what do the sides want?
NK:
*) To maintain the regime.
*) To unify with the south.
SK:
*) To maintain their success story
*) To unify with the north.
*) Peace.
China:
*) To prevent a war on their doorstep that would be damaging to their international reputation.
*) To prevent the potential of millions of refugees flowing over the border.
*) US troops out of Korea (perhaps in the short term replaced by a.n.other).
US:
*) A foreign policy success that the sainted Obama never came close to.
*) Reduce the costs of maintaining the DMZ.
*) To prevent China extending its influence in the region to SK, and by keeping bases in SK.
If you look at these, there may be a way forward if all sides are adult about it and put the needs of the NK people ahead of their interests (yeah, right). Reunification should be seen very much as a long-term goal.
Historically both Koreas have always sought reunification, but increasing prosperity and social change in South Korea has rendered that a bit less of a national consensus.
0 -
Ha ha - good story - very Mancunian. Family before celebrities from the other end of the country.Roger said:Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.
Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?
'She's opening the new tram system' she said.
At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.
The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.
"I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said
"It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"
Having said that, this republican is full of admiration for our present queen. She is so bloody dogged, so relentless in doing her job. She's so bloody professional. Presumably she has an ego, but - in contrast to every single other person in British public life - she shows absolutely no trace of it: who she is has always come second to her role. My heart rather aches for her, in fact; it's not that her job is physically demanding - though any job we ask a 90-year old woman to do is physically demanding - but that she simply does not feel she can stop doing it until she drops. Whatever one may think of the monarchy, you cannot help but admire her personal dedication to the role and to her country. We will miss her when she's gone, both institutionally and personally.0 -
I see the opposite. In areas such as Leeds where you normally elect one councillor at a time, this year there are all-up elections due to boundary changes. In wards where we currently win easily and have all 3 seats there is a greater risk of losing one of them due to 'traffic light' voting.PClipp said:
Quite right, omurali_s said:O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....
f course.murali_s said:O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....
We do it so that the Conservatives or Labour can make a clean sweep of all the seats in a ward with a minimum of effort. That is why we do not change it. Pure self-interest.murali_s said:O/T Local council elections - Why the hell do we elect councilors using the block voting mechanism? It's even more archaic than FPTP....
Keep a look out for results such as 2 Lab + 1 Green or 2 Lab + 1 LD in 'safe' Labour wards.0 -
Rude is the word.murali_s said:
I was responding to the original assertion by a brainwashed Tory apparatchik. Corbyn (not his greatest fan as you know) has a good chance to be our next PM - he was the star of GE 2017 and yet people still dismiss him - these foolish people are in for a rude awakening.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.murali_s said:
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
Do you not realise the strength of an argument is enhanced with the lack of abuse0 -
The collapse of the LD and UKIP votes has meant a return to two party politics in England and many parts of Wales. If you want to stop the Tories you vote Labour and vice versa. By advocating doing nothing in the face of mass slaughter and by making his party a safe haven for anti-Semites, Corbyn is driving more voters into the Stop Labour camp.Recidivist said:
I think Labour's worst leader has to be George Lansbury, and while Corbyn shares some of his weaknesses I don't think he is anywhere near as bad. But any judgement on Corbyn has to be in the context of just how bad a state Labour were in after the 2015 general election. There were serious doubts as to whether it could survive as the main party of opposition. That under Corbyn's watch Labour are now in contention to win next time is a pretty good turnaround. He really can't be that bad.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
0 -
Great storyRoger said:Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.
Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?
'She's opening the new tram system' she said.
At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.
The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.
"I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said
"It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"0 -
OT. I just received an email from Jeremy.
"Roger, the last thing the Tories want right before local elections is for people up and down the country to be talking about just how badly cuts have hit their local communities. So we're going to make sure that's exactly what happens......"
Introducing the one and only.......CUTS CALCULATOR!!!!
I'm a real sucker for catchy one liners. That's got to be worth a vote0 -
Spot on. I have always accepted the theory that HMQ is driven entirely by a sense of duty. In the past that sense has said: Don't abdicate, because it is shirking your duty and letting the UK down by swapping a good monarch for a not so good one. Her duty to the country now is to ensure the succession of Charles (on the reasonable assumption that she is a monarchist and a House of Windsor supporter). The best person to sell Charlie to the nation, is her, and if abdicating now helps her make that sale, it becomes her duty.
Her position is now that of a PM who is going to have to undergo a GE in the next 10 years or so, on her demise, but has the option of going to the country early to crush the anti-Charles saboteurs, by abdicating. I am sure she has advisers at least as astute as Timothy and Hill to do her game planning for her.0 -
Unnerving thought - perhaps Theresa May, who shares that doggedness, will be PM when she's 90 in the Tory resurgence after 20 years of Labour Government...Cookie said:
Ha ha - good story - very Mancunian. Family before celebrities from the other end of the country.Roger said:Some years ago I was in Manchester city centre when I became aware of a large crowd. I wandered into it and at its centre was the queen.
Standing next to me on a concrete block was a young girl so I asked her what was the queen doing in Manchester?
'She's opening the new tram system' she said.
At that moment the queen and her entourage walked right past us and stepped onto a waiting tram which then drove off.
The young girl was now jumping up and down and screaming and waving wildly.
"I don't suppose you get to see the queen very often?" I said
"It's not that" she said. "My Dad's driving the tram!"
Having said that, this republican is full of admiration for our present queen. She is so bloody dogged, so relentless in doing her job. She's so bloody professional. Presumably she has an ego, but - in contrast to every single other person in British public life - she shows absolutely no trace of it: who she is has always come second to her role. My heart rather aches for her, in fact; it's not that her job is physically demanding - though any job we ask a 90-year old woman to do is physically demanding - but that she simply does not feel she can stop doing it until she drops. Whatever one may think of the monarchy, you cannot help but admire her personal dedication to the role and to her country. We will miss her when she's gone, both institutionally and personally.0 -
Interesting article on ConHome (*ducks*) about May being no-confidenced if she gives way on the Customs Union:
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/the-risks-to-mays-position-if-she-backs-off-leaving-off-the-customs-union.html
What would that achieve? I think she’d get a vote of confidence from more than 200 MPs. The only options left would be to effectively no-confidence their own government, or secede to form a new party. Neither sound like a good idea to me.0 -
Mr. Roger, the alternative to cuts is more borrowing. That means more debt and a higher deficit. Which means younger generations having less of their money because they're paying off the debts of older generations who lacked the stomach to try and get things in order.
Catchy one-liners and election slogans are just empty rhetoric (like Corbyn's claim to be tough on anti-Semitism).
Not that he's entirely opposed to cuts, of course. He'd cut defence, he'd cut national security, and he'd cut the ability of the UK to set its own foreign policy by giving the Russians a veto.0 -
It would achieve the creation of a betrayal narrative so that leavers can later blame all the problems caused by Brexit as due to May not doing the right kind of Brexit.RoyalBlue said:Interesting article on ConHome (*ducks*) about May being no-confidenced if she gives way on the Customs Union:
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/04/the-risks-to-mays-position-if-she-backs-off-leaving-off-the-customs-union.html
What would that achieve? I think she’d get a vote of confidence from more than 200 MPs. The only options left would be to effectively no-confidence their own government, or secede to form a new party. Neither sound like a good idea to me.
Incidentally I hadn't realised that ex-pats were excluded from the referendum. That doesn't sound very democratic.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/expat-can-sue-to-overturn-brexit-referendum-x7kbp5krf
0 -
G , C'mon a bit of abuse spices up some really boring topics at timesBig_G_NorthWales said:
Rude is the word.murali_s said:
I was responding to the original assertion by a brainwashed Tory apparatchik. Corbyn (not his greatest fan as you know) has a good chance to be our next PM - he was the star of GE 2017 and yet people still dismiss him - these foolish people are in for a rude awakening.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.murali_s said:
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
Do you not realise the strength of an argument is enhanced with the lack of abuse0 -
I always assumed that it was the only way they could persuade him to visit Oslo.Recidivist said:
I assumed they wanted to get in quick before someone shot him.Charles said:
If he did this Trump would deserve one but wouldn’t get it.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.
China withdrawing full economic support is no doubt a large factor, as is the willingness of South Korea to seek a deal. One stumbling block might be the question of denuclearisation which sounds like it just means North Korea gives up its nuclear programme but actually includes withdrawal from the region of much of America's armed forces including the navy, leaving China as the only superpower in the region. (This is because America will not declare or deny which vessels carry nuclear weapons.)
From Kim's point of view, a workable deal combining economic support with regime continuity was presumably the end game -- it is unlikely he ever intended launching an invasion of the continental United States. NK has workable missiles, and a nuclear capability (or has it? Remember it was reported last year that the nuclear test site had collapsed, possibly killing everyone working on the programme.)
Obama got one without deserving it.
I wonder why?0 -
Mr Roger,
"Introducing the one and only.......CUTS CALCULATOR!!!!"
My local council e-mailed one to everyone and ran a campaign in the local paper on exactly that a couple of years ago, blaming central government for the budget cuts. The calculator allowed you to set a new budget by choosing which of the cuddly things to cut.
Strangely enough, the CE's wages weren't one of the options. In fact, the options were strictly limited to basic services, and didn't include any of the fripperies we've become used to, such as this cuts calculator and the glossy magazines delivered from the council which I usually bin straight away.
0 -
If Trump won the Nobel Peace Prize, the reaction from some quarters will be nothing short of spectacular.DecrepitJohnL said:
For betting purposes, a joint award for Trump, Kim and Xi of China seems most likely, assuming a deal is reached.DecrepitJohnL said:
Trump could be the second American president in a row to get the Nobel Peace Prize.JosiasJessop said:If Trump strikes a workable, sane deal with Kim then it'll be a remarkable achievement, and I (and others) will have to start taking him more seriously.
That's one heck of a conditional, though: there is much in the way of a deal, and China will have to be fully onboard (which I think they are).
But if he does ... wow.0 -
Mr. Recidivist, peers and pro-EU MPs colluding to weaken the UK's negotiating position and trying to force the UK to remain in the customs union after voting to leave the EU would embed this as a running sore in our political system for decades.
It is not legitimate when the electorate vote to leave the EU for politicians to try and force us to remain subject to the EU when it comes to trade.0 -
It's similar to the argument that because the Scottish nationalists gained lots of ground in the 2014 referendum, they'd have no difficulty repeating the trick in a future referendum. The people who voted against independence in 2014 are going to be very hard to win over, just as people who voted Conservative in 2017 will be very hard to win over.murali_s said:
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.0 -
Indeed, malc - but you have turned it into an art form to which murali can’t even hope to aspire.malcolmg said:
G , C'mon a bit of abuse spices up some really boring topics at timesBig_G_NorthWales said:
Rude is the word.murali_s said:
I was responding to the original assertion by a brainwashed Tory apparatchik. Corbyn (not his greatest fan as you know) has a good chance to be our next PM - he was the star of GE 2017 and yet people still dismiss him - these foolish people are in for a rude awakening.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.murali_s said:
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
Do you not realise the strength of an argument is enhanced with the lack of abuse
0 -
It’s worth questioning their motives if they are trying to stop us from leaving, but that ship has now sailed. We are leaving. The referendum was not about our future relationship, hard or soft brexit. It was whether we end our membership of the European Union. There was no other question on the ballot paper.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Recidivist, peers and pro-EU MPs colluding to weaken the UK's negotiating position and trying to force the UK to remain in the customs union after voting to leave the EU would embed this as a running sore in our political system for decades.
It is not legitimate when the electorate vote to leave the EU for politicians to try and force us to remain subject to the EU when it comes to trade.
The democratic mandate from the referendum starts and stops there.
0 -
Perhaps, pea-brain Labour idiot, you would like to explain where Corbyn is going to find another chunk of the electorate to make up the deficit, giving that he hoovered up the "not Tory" vote last time? Or is there a yet-to-be-exploited pool of anti-semites he can rely on in 2022?murali_s said:
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
Corbyn is the busted flush in UK politics.0 -
People only voted to leave the EU. That doesn't preclude staying in the customs union, or any of the many other mutually beneficial arrangements the EU runs. And given the narrowness of the vote and the almost inevitability of us rejoining again in the near future I'd argue that the government is being extremely irresponsible in following any other policy than absolutely minimal disruption to existing relations with our neighbours. We do still live in a democracy.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Recidivist, peers and pro-EU MPs colluding to weaken the UK's negotiating position and trying to force the UK to remain in the customs union after voting to leave the EU would embed this as a running sore in our political system for decades.
It is not legitimate when the electorate vote to leave the EU for politicians to try and force us to remain subject to the EU when it comes to trade.0 -
The last Regent, George IV, only reigned for ten years after his father reigned for almost half a century which suggests Charles will not be King for too long before William takes over.
It was a similar story when Edward VII succeeded Victoria0 -
I agree with their being no need for abusive posts, particularly posts that abuse the individual posting but why go on to turn that into a slur on "the left"?Big_G_NorthWales said:
Why do you need to sound so abusive but is that the way with the left in our Country.murali_s said:
When will you pea-brained Tory idiots learn from GE 2017? Corbyn made mince-meat of a 25% deficit so the current neck and neck situation sees him in good shape.SquareRoot said:
Unsurprising , given Corbyn's recent performances on the Russia and the Anti=Semitic rows.felix said:Ooh! Yougov.
CON: 43% (+3)
LAB: 38% (-2)
LD: 8% (-1)
It would be hard for Labour to find a worse Leader.. Only Gordon Brown comes as close.
As I keep saying, Corbyn or equivalent will be our next PM. The Tories are a busted flush - staid, old, sleazy and broken.
Spend half an hour on Conservative Home or read some of the responses to Alistair Meeks great posts and you will soon be disabused of that notion.0 -
No need to worry about a Jezza government. As the Remainers say, a true democratic vote means he'll have to take account of the 48% or whatever the minority vote is. So if Labour win with a massive 45%, their manifesto commitments will be submerged by the 55% from the other parties.0
-
"A working funeral without the need for a death" is a good way of describing the CHOGM. In this case the deceased manquee is none other than HM Queen Elizabeth herself, the A-est of A list celebrities. A bonus to the main event down the line, to put it indelicately. I doubt Indian PM Modi will turn up in Rwanda in two years time to see Prince Charles.
The expansive communique is pure boilerplate covering all the main platitudes: democratic values, approval of free trade, concern for the environment, promotion of youth and diversity. None of this needs discussion. It just gets regurgitated and approved. Serious meetings deliver nitty gritty commitments on regulation, monitoring and especially money.
The meeting does allow informal meetings between leaders of some relatively important countries who don't get together that often, including India, Australia, Canada and the UK itself. It also allows third world countries who normally struggle to be heard to get an audience with a number of useful players
0
