Nigel_Foremain said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Brom said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Oh dear, Mr Brom, do grow up. I have followed this site since "Tim" was on it. I took a break from it. I don't "slag off Tories", I "slag off" (to use your limited vernacular) people with extremist or simplistic views of politics, whether right or left. You don't like my posts because you fall into that category. I dislike Brexit because it is anti-business, anti-economy, and unpatriotic (pro-Russian) IMO. I have made constructive posts on how the EU actually works, how the Conservative Party works (been a member for over 20 years, activist for 7- up until 2012, voted for Cameron) and how business interacts with politics. Brexit is incompatible with what I regard as proper Conservatism as it is destabilising and anti-business. If you have actually seen my posts you clearly have a very very unsophisticated understanding of centre right political opinion.

I've seen your posts and they are almost entirely bitter and devoid of any conservative values or sentiment (and I say that as someone with no love for the Tories). I think as someone who has been on this site a long time it is fair to call out someone who resorts to insults with almost every post they make. Thank you.

Hrumph

I disagree passionately with Nigel about the EU but otherwise I have seen nothing at all to indicate he is anything other than a committed Tory. Just because he is (in my view) utterly wrong about the EU does not make him wrong on anything or everything else. There are Eurofanatics and Eurosceptics in both the main parties.

Thank you Richard. Good to hear from someone who DOES have a more sophisticated political understanding. Maybe I should tone down my assaults or taunts on views I don't like on here, it probably does bring out the worst in me!

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Brom said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Oh dear, Mr Brom, do grow up. I have followed this site since "Tim" was on it. I took a break from it. I don't "slag off Tories", I "slag off" (to use your limited vernacular) people with extremist or simplistic views of politics, whether right or left. You don't like my posts because you fall into that category. I dislike Brexit because it is anti-business, anti-economy, and unpatriotic (pro-Russian) IMO. I have made constructive posts on how the EU actually works, how the Conservative Party works (been a member for over 20 years, activist for 7- up until 2012, voted for Cameron) and how business interacts with politics. Brexit is incompatible with what I regard as proper Conservatism as it is destabilising and anti-business. If you have actually seen my posts you clearly have a very very unsophisticated understanding of centre right political opinion.

I've seen your posts and they are almost entirely bitter and devoid of any conservative values or sentiment (and I say that as someone with no love for the Tories). I think as someone who has been on this site a long time it is fair to call out someone who resorts to insults with almost every post they make. Thank you.

Hrumph

I disagree passionately with Nigel about the EU but otherwise I have seen nothing at all to indicate he is anything other than a committed Tory. Just because he is (in my view) utterly wrong about the EU does not make him wrong on anything or everything else. There are Eurofanatics and Eurosceptics in both the main parties.

Thank you Richard. Good to hear from someone who DOES have a more sophisticated political understanding. Maybe I should tone down my assaults or taunts on views I don't like on here, it probably does bring out the worst in me!

But if you set a good example then we would all have to follow and that would be terrible.

Taunting views and taunting posters are very different things and I think it is only the latter that are bad form. Something I still have to work on.

Brom said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Oh dear, Mr Brom, do grow up. I have followed this site since "Tim" was on it. I took a break from it. I don't "slag off Tories", I "slag off" (to use your limited vernacular) people with extremist or simplistic views of politics, whether right or left. You don't like my posts because you fall into that category. I dislike Brexit because it is anti-business, anti-economy, and unpatriotic (pro-Russian) IMO. I have made constructive posts on how the EU actually works, how the Conservative Party works (been a member for over 20 years, activist for 7- up until 2012, voted for Cameron) and how business interacts with politics. Brexit is incompatible with what I regard as proper Conservatism as it is destabilising and anti-business. If you have actually seen my posts you clearly have a very very unsophisticated understanding of centre right political opinion.

I've seen your posts and they are almost entirely bitter and devoid of any conservative values or sentiment (and I say that as someone with no love for the Tories). I think as someone who has been on this site a long time it is fair to call out someone who resorts to insults with almost every post they make. Thank you.

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1143488393067847681

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

matt said:

Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.

I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.

I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.

Casino_Royale said:

FWIW the fact that Boris does a bit of modelling on the side is the first endearing thing I’ve heard him say in recent weeks. Makes him seem more human.

I do a bit myself and it’s very therapeutic.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

matt said:

Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.

I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.

I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.

Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.

Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

matt said:

Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.

I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.

I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.

Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.

Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.

The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1143488393067847681

MarkHopkins said:

Tissue_Price said:

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1143488393067847681

An excellent "dead cat"!

williamglenn said:

The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

matt said:

Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.

I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.

I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.

Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.

Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.

The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

It's not really a good sign for Boris Johnson that every time he appears in public Jeremy Hunt's price shortens.

Boris still led the Sky Data poll of all voters yesterday v Hunt let alone just Tory members

Much higher recognition. He would also win as best game show host

Hunt led in London and narrowly in Scotland though and was tied with women, Boris led in the North, the South and the Midlands and Wales and with men.

So no, not name recognition but division largely along Leaver Remainer lines.

Hunt is Foreign Secretary after all, hardly unknown

Could you rename yourself SubsampleMan ? Much more apposite than some impenetrable acronym.

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

matt said:

Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.

I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.

I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.

Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.

Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.

The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Alanbrooke said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Me as Prime Minister? God No.

Dictator/Tyrant of the UK? Hell yeah. I'd have Brexit sorted out by next summer.

"Next summer" !!!!!!!!!

Dear god, you're just Theresa May in trouser flares, floral shirts and vegan sandals !!!

I've never worn flares or sandals in my life.

what about lime green leather trousers ?

Never worn lime green trousers, never worn leather trousers.

youve shattered my illusions, delete that post forthwith

Well this is the latest work shirt I've bought.



Am toying with this one.



I've made quite the impression with my new employers.

Are you a corporate buyer modelling for the visually impaired ?!?

I quite like the top one, though clear it is more of a dinner shirt. I can't imagine who the second one suits, certainly not that model!

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

matt said:

Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.

I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.

I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.

Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.

Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.

The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.

Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.

isam said:

There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

stodge said:

Morning all

Broadly on topic, the problem with the recall Act is within Section 1 it equates expenses fraud to criminal acts which dictate a custodial sentence of less than a year and suspension from the Commons for, as I recall, a period longer than 14 days.

People looking from outside might find the juxtaposition of these types of wrongdoing curious but I suppose for MPs themselves and especially in the light of the scandal of 2009, it was seen as vital to treat expenses fraud with the utmost seriousness.

I entirely agree and accept what Chris Davies has been convicted of is wholly insubstantial in comparison to what Fiona Onasanya did but as the Recall law Section 1 stands, they are comparable. I presume the threshold of 10% is an attempt to ensure the most trivial of offences didn't trigger a by-election but the fact remains well-organised opposition party machines and a little local indignation can go a long way if you only need 10%.

Yes, and I think the Tories have made the right decision letting Davies run again. He'll probably lose anyway, but at least he can make the case to constituents as to why they shouldn't ditch him.

Perhaps had Fiona Onasanya pleaded guilty - on the basis of perverting her brother's justice rather than her own - then there might just have been a way out of it for her. Given what's turned up on the new Peterborough MP that might have been better for Labour.

What’s turned up on the new MP?

Charles said:

isam said:

There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length

That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter

I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

stodge said:

Morning all

Broadly on topic, the problem with the recall Act is within Section 1 it equates expenses fraud to criminal acts which dictate a custodial sentence of less than a year and suspension from the Commons for, as I recall, a period longer than 14 days.

People looking from outside might find the juxtaposition of these types of wrongdoing curious but I suppose for MPs themselves and especially in the light of the scandal of 2009, it was seen as vital to treat expenses fraud with the utmost seriousness.

I entirely agree and accept what Chris Davies has been convicted of is wholly insubstantial in comparison to what Fiona Onasanya did but as the Recall law Section 1 stands, they are comparable. I presume the threshold of 10% is an attempt to ensure the most trivial of offences didn't trigger a by-election but the fact remains well-organised opposition party machines and a little local indignation can go a long way if you only need 10%.

Yes, and I think the Tories have made the right decision letting Davies run again. He'll probably lose anyway, but at least he can make the case to constituents as to why they shouldn't ditch him.

Perhaps had Fiona Onasanya pleaded guilty - on the basis of perverting her brother's justice rather than her own - then there might just have been a way out of it for her. Given what's turned up on the new Peterborough MP that might have been better for Labour.

What’s turned up on the new MP?

Jew Hater.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/104405/jewish-labour-movement-calls-party-suspend-new

TheScreamingEagles said:

We should spend this money on the NHS.

The monarchy cost British taxpayers £67m during 2018-19 - a 41% increase on the previous financial year.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

matt said:

Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.

I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.

I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.

Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.

Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.

The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.

Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.

The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.

DecrepitJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

tlg86 said:

stodge said:

Morning all

Broadly on topic, the problem with the recall Act is within Section 1 it equates expenses fraud to criminal acts which dictate a custodial sentence of less than a year and suspension from the Commons for, as I recall, a period longer than 14 days.

People looking from outside might find the juxtaposition of these types of wrongdoing curious but I suppose for MPs themselves and especially in the light of the scandal of 2009, it was seen as vital to treat expenses fraud with the utmost seriousness.

I entirely agree and accept what Chris Davies has been convicted of is wholly insubstantial in comparison to what Fiona Onasanya did but as the Recall law Section 1 stands, they are comparable. I presume the threshold of 10% is an attempt to ensure the most trivial of offences didn't trigger a by-election but the fact remains well-organised opposition party machines and a little local indignation can go a long way if you only need 10%.

Yes, and I think the Tories have made the right decision letting Davies run again. He'll probably lose anyway, but at least he can make the case to constituents as to why they shouldn't ditch him.

Perhaps had Fiona Onasanya pleaded guilty - on the basis of perverting her brother's justice rather than her own - then there might just have been a way out of it for her. Given what's turned up on the new Peterborough MP that might have been better for Labour.

What’s turned up on the new MP?

Jew Hater.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/104405/jewish-labour-movement-calls-party-suspend-new

The defence is that she liked a post without reading the small print. If TSE would please keep up, that defence is the same one since used for Jeremy Hunt which is probably why CCHQ has gone a bit quiet on the matter.

Charles said:

isam said:

There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length

That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter

I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman

Charles said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We should spend this money on the NHS.

The monarchy cost British taxpayers £67m during 2018-19 - a 41% increase on the previous financial year.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

I suspect a presidency would be just as if not more expensive

How would you feel about President Farage or President Corbyn?

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

isam said:

There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length

That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter

I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman

Careful Charles, you're talking about someone who was a victim of John Worboys.

I am good friends with a victim of John Worboys, and she is a demanding and volatile young woman.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good afternoon, everyone.

It is raining.

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

NickPalmer said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

matt said:

Why do the people that CityAM has sourced for quotes think that he cares about anything other than their personal destruction? The Times has a similar article which deconstructs it as well.

I think there is still denial in the City and indeed in the country about just how extreme (and in this matter raving bonkers) a Corbyn/McDonnell government would be. They are still treating it as like the Labour Party of old.

I disagree, as you'd expect. But more importantly, there is a limit to how often the Conservatives can say "It doesn't matter how rubbish we are, you should always elect us because we're not the alternative". That leads directly to becoming more and more rubbish, until eventually it stops working and people try the alternative anyway, possibly with an overall majority at first try. Democratically, it'd be healthier to elect a Corbyn government with the expected constraints of LibDem/SNP/dissident backbenchers and see how they get on, while the Tories sort themselves out. If they do well, they can try for a better majority. If they do badly, the sorted-out Tories can return.

Democratically, it would have been better if the two big parties hadn't gone bonkers at the same time.

Tories aren't bonkers. Anymore than Thatcher was bonkers for wanting to change from the status quo.

The Brexiteers are the NUM of modern times. Thatcher would have found a way to smash them.

Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.

The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Charles said:

isam said:

There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length

That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter

I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman

Careful Charles, you're talking about someone who was a victim of John Worboys.

I am good friends with a victim of John Worboys, and she is a demanding and volatile young woman.

Not everybody is the same.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/1143494343602397190

Warren the odd one out

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

isam said:

There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length

That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter

I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman

Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.

The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.

Voluntary coming together of Governments is more accurate than peoples. This has always been a project of the governing classes rather than the general populations.

Open your eyes.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

noneoftheabove said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We should spend this money on the NHS.

The monarchy cost British taxpayers £67m during 2018-19 - a 41% increase on the previous financial year.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

If only we had a rich royal family who could fund themselves independently instead of choosing a family on benefits.

The Crown Estate (plus the Duchies) dos of course generate hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the Exchequer, plus a substantial increase in capital value.

If they generate all this money for the Exchequer, they are by extension earning it. All the more reasons why they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for luxurious living standards. Very bad PR for the Royals

I don't think there's any tab for the taxpayer to keep up. I believe they are now funded out of the profits of the estate only?

The direct profits of the Duchies are applied to some of the costs of the monarchy, whereas the tax paid from the Duchies, plus the Crown Estate, are I believe remitted to the Treasury and then a contribution to Buckingham Palace and Balmoral and state events is passed back.

If you think of the Crown Estate as an asset of the monarchy, then 'the monarchy' runs at a profit. If you think the Crown Estate and the Duchies are public resources, clearly it runs at a loss. It's sort of immaterial.

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.

The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.

Voluntary coming together of Governments is more accurate than peoples. This has always been a project of the governing classes rather than the general populations.

Open your eyes.

LOL. How far down has the figure for attendance been revised now? I have lost track. Fanatics marching through the streets of London do not represent the majority will of the people.

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

isam said:

There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length

That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter

I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman

Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.

Hmm. Your attitude helps to explain why there are so many male victims of domestic abuse (they make up more than a third of the total) and yet so few reports or prosecutions. Automatically blaming the man is just as bad as automatically blaming the woman.

I haven't automatically blamed anyone. Charles automatically blamed the woman.

Charles said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

RobD said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

noneoftheabove said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We should spend this money on the NHS.

The monarchy cost British taxpayers £67m during 2018-19 - a 41% increase on the previous financial year.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

If only we had a rich royal family who could fund themselves independently instead of choosing a family on benefits.

The Crown Estate (plus the Duchies) dos of course generate hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the Exchequer, plus a substantial increase in capital value.

If they generate all this money for the Exchequer, they are by extension earning it. All the more reasons why they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for luxurious living standards. Very bad PR for the Royals

I don't think there's any tab for the taxpayer to keep up. I believe they are now funded out of the profits of the estate only?

The direct profits of the Duchies are applied to some of the costs of the monarchy, whereas the tax paid from the Duchies, plus the Crown Estate, are I believe remitted to the Treasury and then a contribution to Buckingham Palace and Balmoral and state events is passed back.

If you think of the Crown Estate as an asset of the monarchy, then 'the monarchy' runs at a profit. If you think the Crown Estate and the Duchies are public resources, clearly it runs at a loss. It's sort of immaterial.

I believe there’s no question that the Duchies are the private property of the Elizabeth Windsor and her son respectively.

The Crown Estates were historically the private property of the Monarch - more if a grey area as to whether they should be deemed state property

The Duchies are run separately

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

williamglenn said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Recidivist said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Nah. If you are using daft analogies then the EU is the Eastern Bloc of modern times. Thatcher would have found away to force an internal collapse.

The EU defies analogies. There has been no other voluntary coming together of peoples to successfully put war behind them like it in history.

Voluntary coming together of Governments is more accurate than peoples. This has always been a project of the governing classes rather than the general populations.

Open your eyes.

LOL. How far down has the figure for attendance been revised now? I have lost track. Fanatics marching through the streets of London do not represent the majority will of the people.

It hasn't been revised down at all. The methodology used for the lower number was comprehensively debunked and proven to be a significant underestimate.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Charles said:

isam said:

There is a way out of this for Boris; it emerges that his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was being gentlemanly in not revealing so. I have had bust ups where girlfriends have kicked and scratched me, and, had the neighbours had a glass to the wall, they’d have probably heard them say ‘get off me’ when I kept them at arms length

That was the impression I had from the original interview - she could be heard clearly while his voice was quieter

I suspect she is quite a demanding and volatile young woman

Blame the woman Charles - not a great look tbh. Hadn't had you down as a bully.

Hmm. Your attitude helps to explain why there are so many male victims of domestic abuse (they make up more than a third of the total) and yet so few reports or prosecutions. Automatically blaming the man is just as bad as automatically blaming the woman.

I haven't automatically blamed anyone. Charles automatically blamed the woman.

Nope. He has opined that she might have been the aggressor. You have claimed that saying that made him a bully. It is you who are being unreasonable here.

Personally given his record of threatened violence, if asked to make a choice I would say it was more likely Boris was the guilty party. But that does not dismiss the possibility that it was his partner. And saying such does not make Charles in any way a bully.

RobD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

We should spend this money on the NHS.

The monarchy cost British taxpayers £67m during 2018-19 - a 41% increase on the previous financial year.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-royal-accounts-this-is-why-the-monarchy-cost-41-more-last-year-11748503

£1 per year per person? Not too bad