Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Given what everybody is talking about it we probably need a thread on this – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    edited March 2021
    Sean_F said:

    tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sean_F said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    I think it's more that the pressures come with the position. Being royal brings immense privilege, but privilege has a price attached to it.
    I see we are now pretending to "think" about it. Sense the "pigs" comment was the authentic one in your case.
    And Obama's?
    When people are flinging mud, it's best to ignore them. That's the implication of Shaw's quote.
    Indeed - I was referencing the controversy over Obama's lipstick on a pig comment. He wasn't suggesting that the woman who's name escapes me (I'm getting old!) was a pig.

    EDIT: Sarah Palin was the woman.
  • MundoMundo Posts: 30

    I am an assiduous follower of PB, but unfortunately have only come out of the woodwork on a couple of occasions. I would like to thank, however, who recommended the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman which I bought and devoured within a weekend. I came away with a feeling that, despite the horrendous sacrifices made by millions during the war, most of the main protagonists were related and that the whole affair was big family squabble.
    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Indeed, please spare us the sight of the odious pair measuring Buckingham Palace for curtains.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    I am an assiduous follower of PB, but unfortunately have only come out of the woodwork on a couple of occasions. I would like to thank, however, who recommended the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman which I bought and devoured within a weekend. I came away with a feeling that, despite the horrendous sacrifices made by millions during the war, most of the main protagonists were related and that the whole affair was big family squabble.
    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    If you like Barbara Tuchman's style (and she is a fine writer) can I recommend A distant Mirror about the horrors of the Black Death and, more significantly, the disruption and socially febrile society that followed it. Covid is not on the same scale, obviously, but it has interesting observations about society under the stress of unexpected death.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    Other than the fact that the raison d'être of their party is 'keeping our friends in power' where does that leave traditional Conservatives?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922
    Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and I loathe her!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 60,004
    edited March 2021
    Good morning

    I have not listened to the Megan interview nor looked at the Daily Mail for days, but the person most at serious mental health risk just has to be Harry

    My eldest living in Vancouver has very serious mental health issues dating back to his involvement in the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and his attendance at ground zero where 185 lost their lives in a collapsed building. He has had 8 electroconvulsive treatments over the last 3 weeks and is facing 6 more due to his extreme PTSD and anxieties

    He married a Canadian in 2015.

    They were both single and they are now aged 54 and apart from her mother and sister he is isolated from all his family here in North Wales. However, we all support him as much as we can and he knows he is greatly loved by all his family, and can return home whenever he is able and enjoy lots of affection and the love of his family

    Harry has severed his relationship with his UK family, and inevitably there will come a time when he will greatly miss them and will no doubt suffer regrets and I expect great anxiety.

    He is very sensitive and is caught up in an unfolding saga that must greatly increase the risks to his mental health well being.
  • Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and have only mild feelings about this whole thing (tending to think that, whilst I'm sure they feel upset about some things, a couple who are serious about avoiding the limelight should probably avoid it).

    A lot of republicans don't dislike the people involved - we are just left cold by it and feel it'd probably be better to knock it on the head when the Queen passes.
    Republicans often say 'when the Queen passes' will be a good time to 'knock it on the head' or whatever. But Charles becomes King the second her majesty passes.

    There is no interregnum during which a serious debate might arise.

    "The Queen is dead, long live the king!"
    I think it was Terry Pratchett in his Discworld novels who said monarchy was the only thing that travels faster than light.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,401

    Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and I loathe her!
    I thought that Meg would be in your "She's OK" category?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and I loathe her!
    Somebody has got to be the odd one out Sunil.
  • Pulpstar said:

    The idea there aren't confident women within the royals is a hoot. Anne and the Queen herself are both very confident indeed.
    Kate and Sophie are quieter but that's the way they are

    Fergie was outspoken too. And Zara Phillips isn't quiet either.

    If you look at what Meghan says, regardless of the situation or the issue, she's always the victim.
    I'm not terribly interested in this, and haven't followed it very closely.

    All I would say is that Harry married into showbiz. And, so far as I can tell to someone with a fair amount of history and "attitude". Nothing wrong with that, per se, but an explosion always possible. No doubt, the Palace might have handled it better. But, who knows?

    Kate Middleton, OTOH, seems to have known very well what she was marrying into, understood the parameters, and psyched herself for it. Result is that she is a huge asset to her husband and to the institution.

    None of this is good news for the Royal Family, but will pass, and with William second-in-line, the monarchy's future is absolutely assured.

    For me, the real victim seems to he Harry who has alienated pretty well everyone, bar media hanger-ons (surely, fair weather friends) and Meghan. Sad, really, as he seems a good guy.
    There is a lot of truth in your comments
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960
    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    They need the strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. A voice like, er, Jeremy Corbyn.

    Oh. Hmmm.....

    *Labour heads towards drawing board....*
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,343
    PB is more readable when it is being Jeremy Paxman rather than Jeremy Kyle.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    Other than the fact that the raison d'être of their party is 'keeping our friends in power' where does that leave traditional Conservatives?
    Somewhat frustrated, just as the left were under Blair or the traditional small business republican was under Trump, or the sane part of the Labour party was under Corbyn, or the AOC set are likely to be with Biden...you get the idea.

    Successful politicians, regrettably, seem by and large to be those who take their traditional supporters for granted, give them a little bit of what they want and then focus relentlessly on winning over those who are not natural supporters. It's what makes Boris a very successful politician even if it doesn't make him principled, or just possibly because he isn't principled.

    Those who win people over to their argument, like Thatcher, are very much the exceptions.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    I am an assiduous follower of PB, but unfortunately have only come out of the woodwork on a couple of occasions. I would like to thank, however, who recommended the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman which I bought and devoured within a weekend. I came away with a feeling that, despite the horrendous sacrifices made by millions during the war, most of the main protagonists were related and that the whole affair was big family squabble.
    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Would Blair win? He messed up in Iraq, Student fees, etc.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    I think Labour do have opportunity.

    Or could, at least.

    The PM is a vacillating idiot whose ambition is the sole motivation of his actions and deeds. He's short-sighted, desperate to be liked, and utterly self-absorbed. Not to mention being a blatant bullshitter and a coward.

    I like that Starmer can answer tough questions like "How many kids do you have?"

    No, he's not exciting, but what he needs to build on is the credible, trusted alternative. That's not impossible. Lots of people dislike or distrust the PM.

    Going on a spendathon is ridiculous. Instead, as the blues move left that gives scope for Labour to occupy the centre ground. Want sound public finances? Vote Labour. Want long term thinking? Vote Labour.

    I doubt that'll happen. But it could.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and I loathe her!
    I thought that Meg would be in your "She's OK" category?
    After the way she treated her own dad? Nah...
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    To misquote Casablanca 'We've always got Brexit'. A crap economy unemployment civil unrest and the country will take a mighty revenge.
  • Pulpstar said:

    The idea there aren't confident women within the royals is a hoot. Anne and the Queen herself are both very confident indeed.
    Kate and Sophie are quieter but that's the way they are

    Fergie was outspoken too. And Zara Phillips isn't quiet either.

    If you look at what Meghan says, regardless of the situation or the issue, she's always the victim.
    Fergie is a prime example of what happens to outspoken women. And Zara who?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    They need the strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. A voice like, er, Jeremy Corbyn.

    Oh. Hmmm.....

    *Labour heads towards drawing board....*
    You're being pedantic now. A strong, clear, sane voice. Happy?

    I don't think it even needs to be saying something particularly different. It just needs a narrative and be plausible in the way, say, Vince Cable was after the GFC. Show that you know what is going on, what the issues are and how to address them. Don't get bogged down on the rights and wrongs of Yemen. That sort of thing.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    Other than the fact that the raison d'être of their party is 'keeping our friends in power' where does that leave traditional Conservatives?
    Somewhat frustrated, just as the left were under Blair or the traditional small business republican was under Trump, or the sane part of the Labour party was under Corbyn, or the AOC set are likely to be with Biden...you get the idea.

    Successful politicians, regrettably, seem by and large to be those who take their traditional supporters for granted, give them a little bit of what they want and then focus relentlessly on winning over those who are not natural supporters. It's what makes Boris a very successful politician even if it doesn't make him principled, or just possibly because he isn't principled.

    Those who win people over to their argument, like Thatcher, are very much the exceptions.
    Very true. You regularly improve my opinion of lawyers.
    It used to be said that to bring in Tory social measures one needed a Labour Government. And vice versa
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Roger said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    What ever happened the stiff upper lip? What kind of people go on TV to slag off your family and your in-laws? It's just vindictive. Go do your own thing. Who cares? But after a pandemic which is still killing millions this is horribly self indulgent
    Imagine you are American and see a continuation of attacks from the UK press even after you've left the country with continual harassment on top.

    I suspect there comes a time when you think blow this and decide to start returning fire.

    That's what Meghan has done here. Which on one level will result in more press articles but on the other hand it has done significant harm to the post Queen Monarchy.

    And the fact everyone is talking about it today shows that damage has been done.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    Good morning

    I have not listened to the Megan interview nor looked at the Daily Mail for days, but the person most at serious mental health risk just has to be Harry

    My eldest living in Vancouver has very serious mental health issues dating back to his involvement in the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and his attendance at ground zero where 185 lost their lives in a collapsed building. He has had 8 electroconvulsive treatments over the last 3 weeks and is facing 6 more due to his extreme PTSD and anxieties

    He married a Canadian in 2015.

    They were both single and they are now aged 54 and apart from her mother and sister he is isolated from all his family here in North Wales. However, we all support him as much as we can and he knows he is greatly loved by all his family, and can return home whenever he is able and enjoy lots of affection and the love of his family

    Harry has severed his relationship with his UK family, and inevitably there will come a time when he will greatly miss them and will no doubt suffer regrets and I expect great anxiety.

    He is very sensitive and is caught up in an unfolding saga that must greatly increase the risks to his mental health well being.

    A sound post.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Good morning

    I have not listened to the Megan interview nor looked at the Daily Mail for days, but the person most at serious mental health risk just has to be Harry

    My eldest living in Vancouver has very serious mental health issues dating back to his involvement in the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and his attendance at ground zero where 185 lost their lives in a collapsed building. He has had 8 electroconvulsive treatments over the last 3 weeks and is facing 6 more due to his extreme PTSD and anxieties

    He married a Canadian in 2015.

    They were both single and they are now aged 54 and apart from her mother and sister he is isolated from all his family here in North Wales. However, we all support him as much as we can and he knows he is greatly loved by all his family, and can return home whenever he is able and enjoy lots of affection and the love of his family

    Harry has severed his relationship with his UK family, and inevitably there will come a time when he will greatly miss them and will no doubt suffer regrets and I expect great anxiety.

    He is very sensitive and is caught up in an unfolding saga that must greatly increase the risks to his mental health well being.

    The saddest part of this whole thing is that apparently Charles refuses to take Harry's calls regarding his grandfather's health. That's really sad and shouldn't be "blamed" on Harry. A father's love should be unconditional.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,922

    Good morning

    I have not listened to the Megan interview nor looked at the Daily Mail for days, but the person most at serious mental health risk just has to be Harry

    My eldest living in Vancouver has very serious mental health issues dating back to his involvement in the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and his attendance at ground zero where 185 lost their lives in a collapsed building. He has had 8 electroconvulsive treatments over the last 3 weeks and is facing 6 more due to his extreme PTSD and anxieties

    He married a Canadian in 2015.

    They were both single and they are now aged 54 and apart from her mother and sister he is isolated from all his family here in North Wales. However, we all support him as much as we can and he knows he is greatly loved by all his family, and can return home whenever he is able and enjoy lots of affection and the love of his family

    Harry has severed his relationship with his UK family, and inevitably there will come a time when he will greatly miss them and will no doubt suffer regrets and I expect great anxiety.

    He is very sensitive and is caught up in an unfolding saga that must greatly increase the risks to his mental health well being.

    The saddest part of this whole thing is that apparently Charles refuses to take Harry's calls regarding his grandfather's health. That's really sad and shouldn't be "blamed" on Harry. A father's love should be unconditional.
    How about Meghan's snubbing of her own dad??
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021
    eek said:

    Roger said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    What ever happened the stiff upper lip? What kind of people go on TV to slag off your family and your in-laws? It's just vindictive. Go do your own thing. Who cares? But after a pandemic which is still killing millions this is horribly self indulgent
    Imagine you are American and see a continuation of attacks from the UK press even after you've left the country with continual harassment on top.

    I suspect there comes a time when you think blow this and decide to start returning fire.

    That's what Meghan has done here. Which on one level will result in more press articles but on the other hand it has done significant harm to the post Queen Monarchy.

    And the fact everyone is talking about it today shows that damage has been done.
    The press are extremely important in this whole debacle, and still maintain a very strange, anomalous kind of influence in the UK for an advanced democracy.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and I loathe her!
    pb always finds one!
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021
    duplicated post - deleted.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    eek said:

    Roger said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    What ever happened the stiff upper lip? What kind of people go on TV to slag off your family and your in-laws? It's just vindictive. Go do your own thing. Who cares? But after a pandemic which is still killing millions this is horribly self indulgent
    Imagine you are American and see a continuation of attacks from the UK press even after you've left the country with continual harassment on top.

    I suspect there comes a time when you think blow this and decide to start returning fire.

    That's what Meghan has done here. Which on one level will result in more press articles but on the other hand it has done significant harm to the post Queen Monarchy.

    And the fact everyone is talking about it today shows that damage has been done.
    This whole thing has been handled terribly by everyone involved. Who on earth is advising the monarchy?
  • I am an assiduous follower of PB, but unfortunately have only come out of the woodwork on a couple of occasions. I would like to thank, however, who recommended the Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman which I bought and devoured within a weekend. I came away with a feeling that, despite the horrendous sacrifices made by millions during the war, most of the main protagonists were related and that the whole affair was big family squabble.
    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Would Blair win? He messed up in Iraq, Student fees, etc.
    I think he would assume that he is personally entitled to the role.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Typical bully - can dish it out, but can't take it:

    https://twitter.com/chrisrickett/status/1369177870191460353?s=20
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891

    Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and I loathe her!
    That makes you a woke misogynist racist who probably pulls down statues at week-ends
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072

    Good morning

    I have not listened to the Megan interview nor looked at the Daily Mail for days, but the person most at serious mental health risk just has to be Harry

    My eldest living in Vancouver has very serious mental health issues dating back to his involvement in the 2011 Christchurch earthquakes and his attendance at ground zero where 185 lost their lives in a collapsed building. He has had 8 electroconvulsive treatments over the last 3 weeks and is facing 6 more due to his extreme PTSD and anxieties

    He married a Canadian in 2015.

    They were both single and they are now aged 54 and apart from her mother and sister he is isolated from all his family here in North Wales. However, we all support him as much as we can and he knows he is greatly loved by all his family, and can return home whenever he is able and enjoy lots of affection and the love of his family

    Harry has severed his relationship with his UK family, and inevitably there will come a time when he will greatly miss them and will no doubt suffer regrets and I expect great anxiety.

    He is very sensitive and is caught up in an unfolding saga that must greatly increase the risks to his mental health well being.

    The saddest part of this whole thing is that apparently Charles refuses to take Harry's calls regarding his grandfather's health. That's really sad and shouldn't be "blamed" on Harry. A father's love should be unconditional.
    How about Meghan's snubbing of her own dad??
    That's sad too. I'm not sure what your point is.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    Other than the fact that the raison d'être of their party is 'keeping our friends in power' where does that leave traditional Conservatives?
    Somewhat frustrated, just as the left were under Blair or the traditional small business republican was under Trump, or the sane part of the Labour party was under Corbyn, or the AOC set are likely to be with Biden...you get the idea.

    Successful politicians, regrettably, seem by and large to be those who take their traditional supporters for granted, give them a little bit of what they want and then focus relentlessly on winning over those who are not natural supporters. It's what makes Boris a very successful politician even if it doesn't make him principled, or just possibly because he isn't principled.

    Those who win people over to their argument, like Thatcher, are very much the exceptions.
    Very true. You regularly improve my opinion of lawyers.
    It used to be said that to bring in Tory social measures one needed a Labour Government. And vice versa
    That's almost certainly because I never really liked the law, really. I just like helping people to find practical solutions. But that law stuff beckons...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    To misquote Casablanca 'We've always got Brexit'. A crap economy unemployment civil unrest and the country will take a mighty revenge.
    LOL. Perchance to dream, Roger.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    The monarchy's best response is to find a way of stopping the Mail from fanning the flames....
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    The best response is to keep calm and carry on but in private attempt to mediate and mend bridges. Family feuds never helped anyone.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Michael D Higgins is the model.

    David Attenborough. Michael Palin.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    Typical bully - can dish it out, but can't take it:

    https://twitter.com/chrisrickett/status/1369177870191460353?s=20

    Blatantly set up. He came back and they were at it again 20 minutes later. Alex and Susanna kept on saying "it's her lived experience" with reference to Archie not being made a prince because of his colour and it was obvious that they were just saying that to wind up Piers.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Typical bully - can dish it out, but can't take it:

    https://twitter.com/chrisrickett/status/1369177870191460353?s=20

    👏👏👏

    Very brave and well said that man. Quite right.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021

    Typical bully - can dish it out, but can't take it:

    https://twitter.com/chrisrickett/status/1369177870191460353?s=20

    He knows he has a major share of the responsiblity at some level, as does much of the popular press.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    Still rather have Wrightie.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    What ever happened the stiff upper lip? What kind of people go on TV to slag off your family and your in-laws? It's just vindictive. Go do your own thing. Who cares? But after a pandemic which is still killing millions this is horribly self indulgent
    Imagine you are American and see a continuation of attacks from the UK press even after you've left the country with continual harassment on top.

    I suspect there comes a time when you think blow this and decide to start returning fire.

    That's what Meghan has done here. Which on one level will result in more press articles but on the other hand it has done significant harm to the post Queen Monarchy.

    And the fact everyone is talking about it today shows that damage has been done.
    This whole thing has been handled terribly by everyone involved. Who on earth is advising the monarchy?
    The whole accusation is based on the Monarchy being clueless, old fashioned and behind the times.

    Harry and Meghan should be sat there doing interesting charity and campaigning work. The fact they aren't says something is very wrong in the heart of the Monarchy - if your face doesn't fit the problem is (Meghan's) / yours not (the Monarchy) / ours .
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    Still rather have Wrightie.
    A job share between Ant and Dec for me.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    The former barrister has thus chosen to go to court with a brief he hasn’t read. He has thereby placed himself on the wrong side of a potential future client (the Queen). And done so without increasing the likelihood of instruction from voters for what will be the most important case of his life – the next election. For all his skills as a lawyer, this doesn’t sound all that forensic to us.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/03/the-duchess-race-claims-starme-goes-to-court-with-a-brief-he-hasnt-read.html
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    The monarchy's best response is to find a way of stopping the Mail from fanning the flames....
    That's like trying to stop the waves in the sea.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. eek, blindly believing accusations that are vague enough to be impossible to deny, and don't have any evidence, isn't something I can get behind.

    She's estranged from her family. Now he's estranged from his. If a man had married a princess, then they'd left the Royal Family, moved to another country, he'd 'persuaded' her to give up one of her favourite pastimes, and was clearly in control there'd be a lot more discussion about coercion.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited March 2021

    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    The best response is to keep calm and carry on but in private attempt to mediate and mend bridges. Family feuds never helped anyone.
    I'm sure I've explained the old family feud on here before.

    It boils down to a wedding invitation being delayed in the post and 1 person announcing they had received it and the other person hadn't.

    The feud is now in it's 3rd generation and we are literally the only people who talk to both halves of the family.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257

    Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and I loathe her!
    I'm a republican and my opinion on her is that I don't really have an opinion. She may be nice, she may be nasty. I've nowhere near enough information to judge or motivation to do so. Same applies to Kate and William and Harry and Charles. Even the Queen (the Queen, I think, does a pretty good job in her professional role, maybe not so well with her family). I feel a bit sorry for most of them.

    I will make an exception for Andrew, I have a negative view of him.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    Still rather have Wrightie.
    I hear Peter Crouch has supporters.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    The best response is to keep calm and carry on but in private attempt to mediate and mend bridges. Family feuds never helped anyone.
    I'd agree with that, in particular the relationship between Harry and Charles seems very poor right now. But it is as you say a truly private matter between them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    Still rather have Wrightie.
    A job share between Ant and Dec for me.
    I think that explains why the monarchy is here to stay.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, pish.

    Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.

    Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.

    As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.

    She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.

    I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.

    What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.

    The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
    Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.

    Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?

    Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
    Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?

    Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
    I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.

    Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
    Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
    With the current media, what lessons? Hide away more?
    That seems to be what those who dislike Meghan want, her to bugger off and never be heard from again - but the likes of the Daily Mail and Piers Moron etc are still free to lambast her as she pleases with no right of reply.

    How about standing up to the media? How about saying that scrutiny is fine but constant trash talk and clickbait would get them excluded from future royal events?

    The Mail etc have been trashing Meghan for years, with about the sole exception of the wedding and who trashes somebody's big day? And what was done about it?

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021
    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    I'm not sure I agree with you there. This will probably work in the Red Wall and the shires, imagining we were talking about party politics here, but not among Britain's many undecided and cultural "swing voters", nor among the many undecideds around the world.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    AN SNP employee has said he has “no faith” in Nicola Sturgeon’s promise to learn lessons about the handling of complaints of harassment within her party after his own complaints against two MPs were bungled for “years”.

    The party is also under pressure to suspend the two MPs involved in the allegations and investigate them fully


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19145355.snp-pressure-suspend-two-mps-centre-harassment-claims-new-witness-speaks/?ref=twtrec
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Roger said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    What ever happened the stiff upper lip? What kind of people go on TV to slag off your family and your in-laws? It's just vindictive. Go do your own thing. Who cares? But after a pandemic which is still killing millions this is horribly self indulgent
    The dozy mare thought she would come in and be the fairy princess and when she found out they are more canaries in a gilded cage she threw her toys out of the pram. Cannot believe she did not watch The Crown before jumping in with both feet.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540

    Dura_Ace said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    Still rather have Wrightie.
    A job share between Ant and Dec for me.
    I think that explains why the monarchy is here to stay.
    https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1369220504788361217?s=20
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,311
    I'm still struggling to find the racism towards MM. I just looked at Wikipedia as article got Megxit and one two sources are behind paywalls and the other is a video of a talking head who cites the Murdoch press not fawning over Meghan, and Danny Baker - and anyone who had listened to Danny Baker of the years would know that what he said wasn't racist - he'd always described the royals as a chimps tea party or chimps on bikes at a circus, i.e. something for people to stare at. Can anyone point be to anything that a normal person would consider racist?
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,395

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    S'pose Tony could have resurrected his title and become, once more, the second Viscount Stansgate. I think viscounts get to wear quite attractive ceremonial togs on state occasions.

    Seriously, though, the only people likely to be acceptable as a Head of State would almost certainly be monarchists.

    I remember, years ago, the columnist Edward Pearce, opining that the Speaker of the House of Commons would do the job perfectly well. However, that was before Michael Martin and John Bercow got the gig.

    Perhaps William could contest a future presidential election like Louis Napoleon? He'd certainly win against a frowsty old retired politician.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    I'm not sure I agree with this. This will probably work in the Red Wall and the shires, imagining we were talking about party politics here, but not among Britain's many undecided and cultural "swing voters", nor among the many undecideds around the world.
    It is the Red Wall who decide elections and who cares what the rest of the world thinks outside those 16 realms the Queen is still head of
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022
    eek said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    The best response is to keep calm and carry on but in private attempt to mediate and mend bridges. Family feuds never helped anyone.
    I'm sure I've explained the old family feud on here before.

    It boils down to a wedding invitation being delayed in the post and 1 person announcing they had received it and the other person hadn't.

    The feud is now in it's 3rd generation and we are literally the only people who talk to both halves of the family.
    That's sad.

    At some point in our lives most of us will be treated unfairly or poorly but how we react to that can shape us.

    I've never been particularly stubborn, and I've no interest in nursing a grudge as that person then lives rent free inside your head, and can define your whole life.

    If I screw up, I reach out, apologise and try to fix it. I don't escalate. I have no problem eating humble pie. Because I know I often get it wrong myself, even if I feel someone else has wronged me.

    If the person is truly toxic, I cut them out of my life - not out of spite of bitterness but just to protect myself - and don't pursue them any longer. But, if they have truly changed, I am willing to give them a second chance.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    What ever happened the stiff upper lip? What kind of people go on TV to slag off your family and your in-laws? It's just vindictive. Go do your own thing. Who cares? But after a pandemic which is still killing millions this is horribly self indulgent
    The dozy mare thought she would come in and be the fairy princess and when she found out they are more canaries in a gilded cage she threw her toys out of the pram. Cannot believe she did not watch The Crown before jumping in with both feet.
    Didn't have you down for such a traditionalist royalist.

    Between your attacks on the SNP First Minister and vigorous defence of the British Royal Family starting to wonder if you've had some sort of damascene conversion or been kidnapped by HYUFD and this is a cry for help.
  • My thoughts on this are that you play the long game. SKS should be "praising" the government in taking the social democratic approach - tax and spend - with the aim of encouraging discontent from conservative mps/activists on not taking a small government approach.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    tlg86 said:

    Typical bully - can dish it out, but can't take it:

    https://twitter.com/chrisrickett/status/1369177870191460353?s=20

    Blatantly set up. He came back and they were at it again 20 minutes later. Alex and Susanna kept on saying "it's her lived experience" with reference to Archie not being made a prince because of his colour and it was obvious that they were just saying that to wind up Piers.
    People are so easily taken in and manipulated. More fake arses pretending they are something special, if you watch that crap then you deserve all you get for being a half witted moronic cretin that needs to get a life.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,997

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    The traditional title is Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of course.

    But why not go the whole hog and review the constitution. The US one of course based on an idealised version of hours based on about 1780. We need to sort federalism out so why not have an executive president?

    My reservation is that a ceremonial president would be a sop to failed Prime Ministers, a bung to move senior Cabinet members sideways. A sort of House of Lords on stilts. We'd have President Brown, not Blair.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    Being a ceremonial president would play to Johnson's very limited strengths in a way that being PM doesn't. Also endless opportunities for grift and redecorating.

    I don't think gobshite Charles is going to last long on the Iron Throne when QE2 carks it. He always looks like he's one more Tunnock's wafer away from a massive stroke.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    I'm not sure I agree with this. This will probably work in the Red Wall and the shires, imagining we were talking about party politics here, but not among Britain's many undecided and cultural "swing voters", nor among the many undecideds around the world.
    It is the Red Wall who decide elections and who cares what the rest of the world thinks outside those 16 realms the Queen is still head of
    So you have no care what the rest of the world thinks of the UK?

    That's interesting. No doubt you'll be repeating your codswallop that the Royals bring tourism before long despite statistics showing the opposite - but who cares about the rest of the world for now eh?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022

    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    What ever happened the stiff upper lip? What kind of people go on TV to slag off your family and your in-laws? It's just vindictive. Go do your own thing. Who cares? But after a pandemic which is still killing millions this is horribly self indulgent
    The dozy mare thought she would come in and be the fairy princess and when she found out they are more canaries in a gilded cage she threw her toys out of the pram. Cannot believe she did not watch The Crown before jumping in with both feet.
    Didn't have you down for such a traditionalist royalist.

    Between your attacks on the SNP First Minister and vigorous defence of the British Royal Family starting to wonder if you've had some sort of damascene conversion or been kidnapped by HYUFD and this is a cry for help.
    Malcolm would probably be a Tory Leaver if he were English.

    He's not so he's a centre-right Scottish nationalist.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited March 2021

    HYUFD said:

    Looking further afield this will really open the debate about the Monarchy's future in NZ, Australia and Canada especially.

    I doubt it will make the slightest difference.

    In Australia the conservative PM Scott Morrison and his more rural and outer suburban supporters will remain monarchists and more sympathetic to the royal family, the Labor opposition leader Albanese and his urban supporters will remain republicans and more sympathetic to the Sussexes.

    In Canada both the PM Trudeau and the leader of the Opposition O'Toole are monarchists so it will make zero difference there with only the third party NDP having an element of republicanism.

    In New Zealand it might make a slight difference when the Queen dies given the Labor PM Ardern is a republican but even there she has said constitutional issues are off the table for now
    Just because certain political leaders are monarchists does not mean that some of the allegations will have caused concern. Its only 23 years since the last referendum in Australia - and in that time Charles & Andrew et al. hardly won over the Republican cause. Canada (where Meghan M will garner significant support) is also likely to be unimpressed, I'm not saying the Queen will be shown the door, but beyond that.........
    Given MM has also abandoned Canada, where they originally bought a property, for California with her husband I doubt the Canadians are that enamoured by them either
    https://www.voanews.com/americas/harry-and-meghan-disappoint-canadians-departure
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 2,395

    AN SNP employee has said he has “no faith” in Nicola Sturgeon’s promise to learn lessons about the handling of complaints of harassment within her party after his own complaints against two MPs were bungled for “years”.

    The party is also under pressure to suspend the two MPs involved in the allegations and investigate them fully


    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19145355.snp-pressure-suspend-two-mps-centre-harassment-claims-new-witness-speaks/?ref=twtrec

    They really are going to every effort to appear a tiredy, corrupty, end-of-the-pier show, like Major's Tories in '97 aren't they? Keep this going til 6th May and who knows what might happen...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,540
    Science & Technology Ctte - Professor Chris Whitty giving evidence:

    https://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/36060029-abe4-42ce-b3e7-71a1e5b27359
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919

    Sean_F said:

    DougSeal said:

    Ultimately this won’t change very much. If you are a monarchist you will support Team Windsor, if not you will support Team Sussex. As we have seen on here monarchists will circle wagons, anti-monarchists will be rallied, and the rest will just continue to shrug their shoulders.

    That's it. Republicans adore Meghan Markle, monarchists can't stand her.
    I'm a republican and I loathe her!
    pb always finds one!
    Deep in your heart you know everyone here is a weirdo in their own special way.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    edited March 2021
    Phone call with GP update: despite being told a month ago (I tried to get ahead of the problem) by my GP that I was allocated to Group 6, it turns out they hadn't allocated me to Group 6 after all.

    I await a return phone call after they speak to a doctor...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
    That actually sounds like the BBC's TV coverage as it stands.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575
    malcolmg said:

    Roger said:

    kamski said:

    So the defence of the royal family boils down to:

    It's all Meghan's fault because she must have known how ghastly they were before she married one of them.

    Fair enough, but surely a little bit of blame attaches to the ghastly royal family for, you know, being ghastly in the first place?

    What ever happened the stiff upper lip? What kind of people go on TV to slag off your family and your in-laws? It's just vindictive. Go do your own thing. Who cares? But after a pandemic which is still killing millions this is horribly self indulgent
    The dozy mare thought she would come in and be the fairy princess and when she found out they are more canaries in a gilded cage she threw her toys out of the pram. Cannot believe she did not watch The Crown before jumping in with both feet.
    Given it had only got up to the 1960s at that point, that's a pretty dozy remark, malc.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, pish.

    Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.

    Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.

    As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.

    She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.

    I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.

    What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.

    The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
    Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.

    Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?

    Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
    Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?

    Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
    I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.

    Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
    Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
    With the current media, what lessons? Hide away more?
    That seems to be what those who dislike Meghan want, her to bugger off and never be heard from again - but the likes of the Daily Mail and Piers Moron etc are still free to lambast her as she pleases with no right of reply.

    How about standing up to the media? How about saying that scrutiny is fine but constant trash talk and clickbait would get them excluded from future royal events?

    The Mail etc have been trashing Meghan for years, with about the sole exception of the wedding and who trashes somebody's big day? And what was done about it?

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
    There's that weird dance between celebrity and media. Celebrities pretend to hate the media - until the circus moves on. Then they are desperate to court it.

    Somebody who hates the intrusion of media in their life has to go on Oprah prime-time to say they just want to lead a quiet, normal life. Yeah, that's what we all do....
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,480
    edited March 2021

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, pish.

    Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.

    Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.

    As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.

    She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.

    I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.

    What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.

    The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
    Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.

    Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?

    Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
    Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?

    Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
    I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.

    Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
    Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
    With the current media, what lessons? Hide away more?
    That seems to be what those who dislike Meghan want, her to bugger off and never be heard from again - but the likes of the Daily Mail and Piers Moron etc are still free to lambast her as she pleases with no right of reply.

    How about standing up to the media? How about saying that scrutiny is fine but constant trash talk and clickbait would get them excluded from future royal events?

    The Mail etc have been trashing Meghan for years, with about the sole exception of the wedding and who trashes somebody's big day? And what was done about it?

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
    There's that weird dance between celebrity and media. Celebrities pretend to hate the media - until the circus moves on. Then they are desperate to court it.

    Somebody who hates the intrusion of media in their life has to go on Oprah prime-time to say they just want to lead a quiet, normal life. Yeah, that's what we all do....
    But even the US popular press don't hound their selected targets in the way their British counterparts do, though, in the very home of celebrity. There's something specifically wrong in the UK on this front, and it's interesting and significant.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,022

    I'm still struggling to find the racism towards MM. I just looked at Wikipedia as article got Megxit and one two sources are behind paywalls and the other is a video of a talking head who cites the Murdoch press not fawning over Meghan, and Danny Baker - and anyone who had listened to Danny Baker of the years would know that what he said wasn't racist - he'd always described the royals as a chimps tea party or chimps on bikes at a circus, i.e. something for people to stare at. Can anyone point be to anything that a normal person would consider racist?

    Danny Baker thought he was making a republican/class-war point with his tweet and the way it could be interpreted as racist (obvious to anyone else) never seemed to cross his mind. He's an impulsive loudmouth and didn't think it through.

    I came off Twitter over a month ago now, and I'm glad I did. I don't miss it at all (aside from David Herdson and Matt Singh's insights, both of whom I wish were still regulars on here) and I'm far calmer and happier.

    And, most importantly, I'm spending more time with my family.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772
    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
    A cruel reality show played for media ratings is not too far off the status quo.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    The monarchy's best response to all this will be to keep calm and carry on.

    I'm not sure I agree with this. This will probably work in the Red Wall and the shires, imagining we were talking about party politics here, but not among Britain's many undecided and cultural "swing voters", nor among the many undecideds around the world.
    It is the Red Wall who decide elections and who cares what the rest of the world thinks outside those 16 realms the Queen is still head of
    So you have no care what the rest of the world thinks of the UK?

    That's interesting. No doubt you'll be repeating your codswallop that the Royals bring tourism before long despite statistics showing the opposite - but who cares about the rest of the world for now eh?
    What they think of them is irrelevant they are our Heads of State not theirs.

    Their will still be plenty who come here for royal weddings both from the royal realms and elsewhere but I am a monarchist regardless of the tourism issue
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
    I'm now wondering whether those are all real shows - it wouldn't surprise me!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Phone call with GP update: despite being told a month ago (I tried to get ahead of the problem) by my GP that I was allocated to Group 6, it turns out they hadn't allocated me to Group 6 after all.

    I await a return phone call after they speak to a doctor...

    That's pretty rubbish, hopefully they've fixed that and you can book an appointment tomorrow!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. Pioneers, pish.

    Not being a celebrity and waffling about your own interests and views is part of being a working Royal, as the Queen herself behaves.

    Meghan wanted the red carpets and sparkly jewellery and found the constraints too restrictive. Which is fair enough. Except she wanted to keep the perks and dispense with most of the ghastly workload, and to return to being a celebrity where she can make money as she wills.

    As for those saying "oh, they didn't get an appearance fee". Sure. How much publicity have they got? Money isn't the only currency.

    She's married to the son of Princess Diana. They have retired from the firm, lose their HRHs and the American media won't care one bit. Besides which I hear she is quite a good actor - she has and can continue to get her own fame.

    I know I have posted on this a few times this morning. I don't care about Harry and Megan giving their interview. I don't care much about their scandalous allegations because I imagine the real firm to be far far worse.

    What bemuses / horrifies me is the media response. Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage telling a beautiful confident successful woman that she should Shut Up and Do As She's Told and not have opinions and not have her own thoughts.

    The furore now is aimed at Ms Markle. In the Daily Heil its always aimed at someone - that dress is Hideous or Look she has Cellulite or Outrage she has Sex and Enjoys It. And when they find the public finally grow weary of their Megan hate they will simply turn on another woman and start berating her for a bit.
    Yesterday was international women's day and the media was full of hideous coverage of a beautiful confident successful woman telling us how difficult it is to be a Duchess within the most famous family in the world.

    Which role-model should the rest of womankind take from that? Be a media-savvy schemer who snags a prince for the purpose of your self-promotion? Or admit to being an ingénue, innocent of the ways of the most family in the world (blissfully unaware of the pressures that led to the hounding to death of the mother of the prince you snagged)?

    Hmmm, not easy is it, being woman in this day and age...
    Wowsers. If the plan was to snag a prince for self-promotion, why accelerate his and your departure from the royal family?

    Perhaps - and I know its hard for all you misogynists out there to conceive - they might actually love each other.
    I'm no fucking misogynist, you prick. I can just see someone - gender irrelevant - who got the part without reading the script. Or so she would have us believe.

    Anyone who marries the son of Princess Diana, without any apparent knowledge of the pressures within the Royal Family that caused the death of Princess Diana, is not a plausible witness in my court of public opinion. Life in the House of Mountbatten isn't Disney. It doesn't come with guaranteed living happily ever after.
    Even if you did know about the pressures that caused her death you might think that the Royal Family would have learnt from those mistakes and not make the same stupid mistakes all over again.
    With the current media, what lessons? Hide away more?
    That seems to be what those who dislike Meghan want, her to bugger off and never be heard from again - but the likes of the Daily Mail and Piers Moron etc are still free to lambast her as she pleases with no right of reply.

    How about standing up to the media? How about saying that scrutiny is fine but constant trash talk and clickbait would get them excluded from future royal events?

    The Mail etc have been trashing Meghan for years, with about the sole exception of the wedding and who trashes somebody's big day? And what was done about it?

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal
    There's that weird dance between celebrity and media. Celebrities pretend to hate the media - until the circus moves on. Then they are desperate to court it.

    Somebody who hates the intrusion of media in their life has to go on Oprah prime-time to say they just want to lead a quiet, normal life. Yeah, that's what we all do....
    Your point would be relevant if they had been respected with a quiet, normal life until now and it is only them going on Oprah that has changed things.

    But its not true. So its not relevant. If the media is constantly trashing them and talking about them despite their desire for their own life then why shouldn't they eventually speak to somebody civilised to set the record straight as far as they're concerned?
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919

    The former barrister has thus chosen to go to court with a brief he hasn’t read. He has thereby placed himself on the wrong side of a potential future client (the Queen). And done so without increasing the likelihood of instruction from voters for what will be the most important case of his life – the next election. For all his skills as a lawyer, this doesn’t sound all that forensic to us.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2021/03/the-duchess-race-claims-starme-goes-to-court-with-a-brief-he-hasnt-read.html

    ConservativeHome in “doesn’t approve of Labour leader” shock headline.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
    That actually sounds like the BBC's TV coverage as it stands.
    Then our first five-year Presidential term looks like it is going to Stacey Solomon.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    edited March 2021
    ..
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
    That actually sounds like the BBC's TV coverage as it stands.
    Then our first five-year Presidential term looks like it is going to Stacey Solomon.
    Either her or if ITV get involved it could be Scarlett Moffatt.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,572
    It doesn't matter that "The Crown" is 20 years behind.

    "The Windsors" is far more relevant, and nearly up to date. And rather good. Roll on Series 3.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
    I'm now wondering whether those are all real shows - it wouldn't surprise me!
    They are the only 1s that aren't 100% accurate is Sew Off (Great British Sewing Bee) and Pot Off (The Great Pottery Throw Down)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,072
    MaxPB said:

    Phone call with GP update: despite being told a month ago (I tried to get ahead of the problem) by my GP that I was allocated to Group 6, it turns out they hadn't allocated me to Group 6 after all.

    I await a return phone call after they speak to a doctor...

    That's pretty rubbish, hopefully they've fixed that and you can book an appointment tomorrow!
    I had to be really insistent to get past the receptionist roadblock to be able to speak to the "Patient liaison manager" or whatever. I worry lots of people will simply wait and be forgotten about.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 337
    Roger said:

    DavidL said:

    Pretty much what I have been saying on here. At the moment Boris's tanks are not so much on Labour's lawn as building ditches and fortifications there. It doesn't leave Labour many places to go. They need a strong, clear voice that sounds distinctive. But they've got SKS instead.
    To misquote Casablanca 'We've always got Brexit'. A crap economy unemployment civil unrest and the country will take a mighty revenge.
    You mean like Greece, Italy, Spain etc.....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,960

    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
    That actually sounds like the BBC's TV coverage as it stands.
    Then our first five-year Presidential term looks like it is going to Stacey Solomon.
    Either her or if ITV get involved it could be Scarlett Moffatt.
    With the weekly Gogglebox commentary on her five year term. Think you've nailed it.
  • XtrainXtrain Posts: 337
    Selebian said:

    eek said:

    Dura_Ace said:


    The current shenanigans have merely confirmed that view, and as a result, the RF may have been holed below the waterline. I only ask of them that they hang on long enough to prevent Blair becoming the first President of an UK/English Republic (whatever).

    Candidates for President of the Republic is an interesting discussion. They have to be apolitical, universally admired and good at welcoming dignitaries, etc.

    Joanna Lumley or Ian Wright would both be good.
    Assuming we'd have an almost purely ceremonial President, as in Ireland, you can still have an ex-politico in the role, provided they're someone who has won cross-party respect.

    Tony Benn might have done, or Ken Clarke.
    You are simply not ambitious enough. We need a ceremonial President with an 5 year term - selected via a series of TV shows.

    Points are awarded for participating in and their final position in Strictly, I'm a Celeb, the Masked Singer, Bake Off, Pooch Perfect, Sew Off and Pot Off.

    The celeb who scores the most points during the previous 5 years is appointed the next President.
    I'm now wondering whether those are all real shows - it wouldn't surprise me!
    No it has to be decided by Celebrity Karaoke Club or I'm not voting!
This discussion has been closed.