Howdy, Stranger!

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

Parliament must return in person and permanently – politicalbetting.com

1457910

Comments

  • pingping Posts: 3,805
    edited April 2021
    isam said:

    Not sure but they always have a ridiculously high volume of matched bets, but no liquidity. They seem to just copy Betfair on some markets, and also banned me from using the exchange, the ay bookies make "trading decisions" to stop winners picking them off, so there is definitely something fishy gwan on with them
    You used to be able to manufacture smarkets liquidity by placing bets on obscure/lightly traded betfair markets.

    Although I never did it, and it involved some risk, it looked to me like you could make serious money manipulating their odds.

    Dunno if that’s still possible. It’s borderline fraud. Either way, smarkets business model seems to me to be parasitic and slightly scummy.

    Still, Happy to use them for the odd bet at decent odds and keep my balance low.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,395
    Andy_JS said:

    Totally agree. It would be a once in 75 years occasion.
    Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc

    Off the scale.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    kle4 said:

    It's certainly true we do not, yet, live in a race blind world. Pretending we do won't help get there, not completely. But I'm personally very skeptical that hyper awareness of race and community (a much overused word which inevitably lumps people together in simplistic fashion) is a way to achieve it either.
    Ok. great. So you agree with me that skin colour is sadly NOT irrelevant, yes?

    With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke". :smile:
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    edited April 2021

    It's just completely overboard.

    He's died, it's very sad. But that's it, I don't care beyond that. I didn't know him.

    The fact it's going to be going on another week - with this ridiculous one minute silence - is absolutely absurd I'm afraid.
    If you think this is bad wait until HMQEII shuffles off.......but it will also be quite different - when the queen dies there will be a new King to toast, today it's a simple loss.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814

    Bigger than that. Longest monarch ever, phenomenally effective, universally respected, Queen of the World, head of the commonwealth, overseen the biggest changes in British and world history etc etc etc

    Off the scale.
    I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825

    That said, I hope we can (mostly) agree that wall to wall coverage of HMQ for a week when the "transition" occurs would be entirely appropriate.

    Not just for us, but for the World.

    You don't get historic moments bigger than that. Ever.

    Not the WORLD. C'mon.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,395
    kle4 said:

    True, but even then there will be lots of complaints, and it will be a struggle even for those of us who feel genuinely affected by such an era transition.

    And that Guardian long piece on plans for HM suggest there'll be at least 11 days coverage.
    Not in the slightest. It will be existential and fundamental for Britain - what we are, who we are and what comes next - and our place in the world.

    I'm sure it'll test the patience of any staunch republican, but even they'll have to concede (quietly) that's valid.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    edited April 2021
    kle4 said:

    Fair play for expanding the use of woke to cover both left and right.
    Won't catch on though unfortunately.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 24,280
    kinabalu said:

    What do you think I'm saying that is materially different to this? If indeed you do.
    Nothing in particular, just a different emphasis. Stocky has a fair point that grouping people by "colour" is problematic, and that goes beyond the part imaginary "community" of those broad groups (part imaginary as there often are such communities but they are not well defined and don't include everyone with that "label"). You are right in saying that sometimes it is necessary to do so to understand what is happening in society.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    Leon said:

    Shall we park this one? We must be boring the tits off everyone else
    Of course. I was always just counter punching.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,932
    Leon said:

    The risk is about a fifth of the country will blow hooters, bang saucepans, blast kazoos....
    I sense an opportunity for vuvuzela manufacturers.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235
    moonshine said:

    Hmmm, Charles would take that I suspect.
    It's not inconceivable the Queen could make it to ~ 115 or some such and Charles passes at 93 or so.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,964
    kinabalu said:

    My question was and is - How are we to, for example, discuss the distrust of the metropolitan police felt by so many black people in London if we first pronounce that skin colour is irrelevant?
    I'm looking for an answer to that.
    I would suspect that the criminal community is even more distrustful of the police.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,575
    No punches pulled there.

    It’s disturbing how dreadfully inept Ursula von der Leyen has proved, but what’s even worse is her flailing about to blame everyone else for her shortcomings. When Jean Claude Juncker kept falling over because he was pissed, while he may have lied about the reasons at least he didn’t claim anyone pushed him.

    If she carries on like this in 24 months the EU will have no allies left.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    kinabalu said:

    Ok. great. So you agree with me that skin colour is sadly NOT irrelevant, yes?

    With the obligatory caveat added to make it clear you're not "woke". :smile:
    Of course race is not irrelevant. But it depends what people mean by woke. For the longest time I only ever heard it used an insult, so I thought that its original meaning had been supplanted. It seems to be making a comeback.

    The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.

    Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,575
    edited April 2021
    ClippP said:

    I would suspect that the criminal community is even more distrustful of the police.
    Really? In Gloucestershire the criminal community were the one group who really trusted them.

    Everyone else knew that they were crooks only out for themselves and knew to avoid them at all costs.

    Staffs aren’t as bad, in my (fortunately limited) experience.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    kinabalu said:

    Won't catch on though unfortunately.
    It should. Woke, useful idiot, snowflake, gammon, terms like these can be applied pretty broadly.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814
    Pulpstar said:

    It's not inconceivable the Queen could make it to ~ 115 or some such and Charles passes at 93 or so.
    William would then need to live to 136. Which is Aubrey de Grey territory.
  • kinabalu said:

    Not the WORLD. C'mon.
    I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon

    Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.

    The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    If you think this is bad wait until HMQEII shuffles off.......but it will also be quite different - when the queen dies there will be a new King to toast, today it's a simple loss.
    When the time comes, I wonder how long it will take some people to get used to the fact that the words to the national anthem have changed...?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    ydoethur said:

    No punches pulled there.

    It’s disturbing how dreadfully inept Ursula von der Leyen has proved, but what’s even worse is her flailing about to blame everyone else for her shortcomings. When Jean Claude Juncker kept falling over because he was pissed, while he may have lied about the reasons at least he didn’t claim anyone pushed him.

    If she carries on like this in 24 months the EU will have no allies left.
    I'm not sure what is worse - that UvDL is steaming over a diplomatic faux-pas, or that others are steaming about it even though she is not.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814

    I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon

    Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.

    The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
    Well of course. Russia still have their bootlegged vaccine to flog to the world, Philip or no Philip.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825

    Nothing in particular, just a different emphasis. Stocky has a fair point that grouping people by "colour" is problematic, and that goes beyond the part imaginary "community" of those broad groups (part imaginary as there often are such communities but they are not well defined and don't include everyone with that "label"). You are right in saying that sometimes it is necessary to do so to understand what is happening in society.
    Ah ok. Well I'm not arguing that it's a positively good thing to be always referring to such groupings, so tbh we're probably on the same page.

    What I'm not keen on is people doing the old simplistic virtue-signalling shtick - equating the noble aspiration of being race blind with having to pretend that we are already there.

    You know what I mean.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    edited April 2021

    I flicked through the news channels on Sky yesterday mid-afternoon

    Only the UK/Europe focused ones, such as France 24 (English), Euro News were leading with it.

    The other Asian, Middle East and African channels were leading with local stories, RT was talking about the AZ vaccine.
    The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.

    The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    As I commented this morning the late King died in February 1952 but the coronation was not for over a year until June 1953

    And I remember them both very well
    Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    rpjs said:

    Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
    Oh, I imagine Charles has had time to plan it in exacting detail.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,395
    kle4 said:

    Of course race is not irrelevant. But it depends what people mean by woke. For the longest time I only ever heard it used an insult, so I thought that its original meaning had been supplanted. It seems to be making a comeback.

    The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.

    Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
    The problem is that people are totally self-absorbed and narcisstic dicks about it and use it as an excuse to show off about themselves and pompously lecture others depending on what "group" they are in, rather than help others feel more included in a practical and measured way that demonstrates real leadership.

    That pisses me off.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,395
    kinabalu said:

    Not the WORLD. C'mon.
    Yes, the World.

    Really.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,575
    kle4 said:

    I'm not sure what is worse - that UvDL is steaming over a diplomatic faux-pas, or that others are steaming about it even though she is not.
    The point being, there was no diplomatic faux pas. Michel and Erdogan acted in accordance with the correct protocol which under Article 15 confirmed in 2011 gives precedence to the President of the Council.

    So the only issue here is that von der Leyen is kicking up a fuss because she is a self-aggrandising fool who doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about and unnecessarily damaged relations with a regional power that was taking tentative steps back into the EU orbit.

    That’s on top of her other train wrecks over Astra Zeneca and its contracts, which she lied about to cover her mistakes.

    She is an accident looking for somewhere else to happen.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    kle4 said:

    Of course race is not irrelevant. But it depends what people mean by woke. For the longest time I only ever heard it used an insult, so I thought that its original meaning had been supplanted. It seems to be making a comeback.

    The serious point is that some people like to imply or outright state anyone who is not self declared woke does not care about racial issues or even thinks there are no such issues anymore. But just like not all woke warriors are obnoxious, nor are all those anti-woke warriors in denial or obnoxious.

    Many people are woke without liking that label. Others may use the label but be far less woke than they think they are (the 'clearly racist, anti-racist campaigner' problem, as I like to call it).
    Good post. Agree with all of it.

    Highlighted the key bit for the (narrow) purposes I was pursuing.

    I'll just tag @Stocky and bugger off now. Think that's best.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    The problem is that people are totally self-absorbed and narcisstic dicks about it and use it as an excuse to show off about themselves and pompously lecture others depending on what "group" they are in, rather than help others feel more included in a practical and measured way that demonstrates real leadership.

    That pisses me off.
    While people may well not accept your conclusions on these issues, I would hope they would accept that you have thought about these things, including seeking discussion with affected persons about their experiences, in such a way that those conclusions should not be dismissed as being no different to those seeking to ignore things completely.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,395
    moonshine said:

    I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
    It's not just about her amazing reign and how she created the Commonwealth and managed one of the most difficult transitions and modernisations/values shifts in world history but about what it means for the future and what comes next. It will have us glued to the edge of our seats for months.

    That's why it's different.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,235
    kinabalu said:

    Not the WORLD. C'mon.
    She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    moonshine said:

    I dunno. People said the same about Mandela and all I remember about his farewell was Obama and Cameron getting in trouble with their wives for flirting with that danish sort.
    Obama also got in trouble with some of his opponents for shaking hands with Raul Castro. I remember as Colbert joked about whether Nelson Mandela's funeral was really the place for reconciliations.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814
    kle4 said:

    The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.

    The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
    I think people in the West tend to overestimate its global cultural importance. Lee Kwan Yew and King Bumibol dying were huge news in Asia but I doubt most here even knew who they were. I lost count of the number of sober minded grownups sobbing at those two.

    Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.

    As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
  • ydoethur said:

    The point being, there was no diplomatic faux pas. Michel and Erdogan acted in accordance with the correct protocol which under Article 15 confirmed in 2011 gives precedence to the President of the Council.

    So the only issue here is that von der Leyen is kicking up a fuss because she is a self-aggrandising fool who doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about and unnecessarily damaged relations with a regional power that was taking tentative steps back into the EU orbit.

    That’s on top of her other train wrecks over Astra Zeneca and its contracts, which she lied about to cover her mistakes.

    She is an accident looking for somewhere else to happen.
    Very well said
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,531
    First ducklings of the year seen today.

    In other good news the zoe covid numbers are dropping fast:

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/data
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 14,012
    ping said:

    Well that was a waste of time and money.

    Backed 5 horses inc the fav and none of them even came close.

    Pft

    Time they stopped FPTP and went in for PR.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,575
    edited April 2021
    rpjs said:

    Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
    Not ‘historically.’ Recently. So, for example, Edward VII’s coronation was in 1902 (and was postponed for three months because he was ill in June) and Victoria’s in 1838, but George I was crowned on the 20th October 1714, less than three months after the death of Anne and only 32 days after landing in Britain. This is because until fairly recently the King had no powers to act until he was crowned and therefore the government had to be managed by regents until that time - e.g. Lord Burghley for James I and Margaret Beaufort for Henry VIII. This is also why Henry VII had himself crowned on the battlefield and made damn good and sure his wife (through whom he had effectively claimed the throne) wasn’t crowned Queen until several years after he had married her.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,553
    We all love a gag at the French expense...

    https://twitter.com/Queen_UK/status/1380926761748283398?s=19
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,825
    Pulpstar said:

    She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
    Certainly huge. No argument there. We're just maybe slightly differing on the degree of hugeness.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    moonshine said:

    I think people in the West tend to overestimate its global cultural importance. Lee Kwan Yew and King Bumibol dying were huge news in Asia but I doubt most here even knew who they were. I lost count of the number of sober minded grownups sobbing at those two.

    Sure, Betty Windsor is going to make the newspapers everywhere. But most people don’t read newspapers. It wouldn’t feature on wechat for too long. Bit like Brexit, I struggle to recall anyone in East Asia really talking about it much. They were a bit preoccupied with whether Kim was going to turn their cities to glass.

    As for Greta, I’d forgotten all about her until you mentioned her name. Has she grown up and discovered what makes all the stuff?
    The thing is because of her longevity and prominence the Queen is essentially one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not a question of being culturally important to people in, say, Laos, it's that it will be a really really big story in enough places that even where it is not as big a story, they will hear about it. Bumibol was big locally, but it is simply the case that the British Monarchy has a bigger global profile, not least because the Americans obsess about it so much, and that will filter out.
  • Pulpstar said:

    She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
    I have a very good friend who has taught English in Beijing for the last 25 years.

    Other than the European expats over there the locals really could not give the slightest shit about anything European related apparently, let alone UK.

    From my understanding of how he describes the culture of a quarter of the planet, they are almost without exception totally focused on domestic issues and I would transpose that to meaning there will be no interest in whatever the news in the UK may be.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814

    It's not just about her amazing reign and how she created the Commonwealth and managed one of the most difficult transitions and modernisations/values shifts in world history but about what it means for the future and what comes next. It will have us glued to the edge of our seats for months.

    That's why it's different.
    Simon Cowell should do a programme for it. The 10 next in-lines all facing off against each other each week, shaking hands, cutting ribbons, signing red boxes, making small talk with a different guest African dictator each week.

    The winner is the one who the public judges to have said the least of any interest or consequence.

    Or to put another way, I think the death of the Queen is the most overhyped event ever in what it means for “what’s next”. It just don’t matter guv, it will be the same as the day before.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,395
    kle4 said:

    While people may well not accept your conclusions on these issues, I would hope they would accept that you have thought about these things, including seeking discussion with affected persons about their experiences, in such a way that those conclusions should not be dismissed as being no different to those seeking to ignore things completely.
    Thank you.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,692

    Not in the slightest. It will be existential and fundamental for Britain - what we are, who we are and what comes next - and our place in the world.

    I'm sure it'll test the patience of any staunch republican, but even they'll have to concede (quietly) that's valid.
    Well, England did become a republic/Commonwealth 144 years before France did, and 134 before the Yanks did.

    It's not our fault the Cromwells were twats!
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,395
    Pulpstar said:

    She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
    Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    I’ve been avoiding PB as it’s become yet another Prince Phillip channel. As @Cyclefree says, yesterday’s blanket coverage on every BBC channel was beyond excessive, and nor was it popular. It’s been a big ratings turnoff. Why was Gardeners World cancelled?

    Thankfully Radios 1, 3, 6 and 1X have now returned to broadcasting music.

    The spectacle of a dedicated dance music station - DANCE MUSIC! - running an identical obituary feed to Radio 4 was beyond ludicrous.


  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,247
    ydoethur said:

    Really? In Gloucestershire the criminal community were the one group who really trusted them.

    Everyone else knew that they were crooks only out for themselves and knew to avoid them at all costs.

    Staffs aren’t as bad, in my (fortunately limited) experience.
    Please refer too them as the Legally Challenged Community. Criminal is so pejorative.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    moonshine said:

    Simon Cowell should do a programme for it. The 10 next in-lines all facing off against each other each week, shaking hands, cutting ribbons, signing red boxes, making small talk with a different guest African dictator each week.

    The winner is the one who the public judges to have said the least of any interest or consequence.

    Or to put another way, I think the death of the Queen is the most overhyped event ever in what it means for “what’s next”. It just don’t matter guv, it will be the same as the day before.
    I think you're assessing it in a rather odd way. People don't need to be crying in the streets of Donetsk or Kampala about it for it to be a really big story.

    And because it will matter to this country, and several others, in a big way, other places will officially make sure to say how much it matters to them, making it a story. Would it not being the leading item in Uruguay mean it was not, at that time, likely to be the biggest news story on the planet?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,575

    Please refer too them as the Legally Challenged Community. Criminal is so pejorative.
    If you say so, but ‘police’ is shorter.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,852
    Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here

    There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:

    "In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."

    This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow

    China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134

    When the time comes, I wonder how long it will take some people to get used to the fact that the words to the national anthem have changed...?
    The ‘mister mayor, madam mayor’ bear trap familiar to anyone who has been a councillor.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,692
    kle4 said:

    The suggestion was it would be for the world when the Queen dies. How much coverage other places will have will vary, but it's a good bet when she does a lot of those channels will make a bigger deal of it than when her husband passed away.

    The only bigger story would be if Greta Thunberg died.
    Historically, the biggest funerals have occurred in Republics:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_funerals
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814
    kle4 said:

    The thing is because of her longevity and prominence the Queen is essentially one of the most recognizable people on the planet. It's not a question of being culturally important to people in, say, Laos, it's that it will be a really really big story in enough places that even where it is not as big a story, they will hear about it. Bumibol was big locally, but it is simply the case that the British Monarchy has a bigger global profile, not least because the Americans obsess about it so much, and that will filter out.
    See Kurt’s comment. Hardly anyone in half the world cares what the Americans are doing, much less the Brits. Sure, a truck driver in rural Laos may see it flash up on the tv news when he pops up to the shop to get some red bull. But he’ll shrug and go about his day. David Beckham on the other hand...

    And in India I suspect the passing of David “Lovely Jubbly” Jason would illicit more genuine grief than the Queen among tuk tuk drivers.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,177
    Ooh. Shrek is on Netflix.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,247
    kinabalu said:

    Won't catch on though unfortunately.
    I recall causing a bit of moment, in a discussion concerning Charlie Gilmore and his fate.

    I pointed out to someone, that just as they wanted X's life destroyed for "modern social crime"* Y, some people were equally angry about young Mister Gilmore.

    It was an interesting moment - it produced a series of emotions, surprise, anger that their cause could be likened to the protection of the Cenotaph, surprise again at the thought that there were people who thought this way....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Please refer too them as the Legally Challenged Community. Criminal is so pejorative.
    At school I attended a conference where someone genuinely did say they did not believe in the term criminal. I don't recall if they had an alternative, or just wanted people to use some clunky descriptor like Citizen in Trouble or something.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,297
    Leon said:

    Just read that stark New Yorker article about China, Uighurs and state surveillance by technology. It is 1984, but more sophisticated and sinister, and it is here

    There are even echoes of Nazism. This bit struck me:

    "In some cases, officials pursued an odd tactic [against Uighur buildings]: miniaturization. In 2018, the grand gatehouse of a mosque in the town of Kargilik was covered with a banner proclaiming, “Love the Party, love the country.” Then the structure was dismantled and rebuilt as an ersatz version of itself, at a quarter the size."

    This is racist mockery as a state policy. The Nazis did something like this to Jews in occupied countries, they took Jewish tombstones and turned them into paving stones, so Jews had to walk and drive over them. They used other tombstones to build walls around the ghetto in Krakow

    China is a dystopian autocracy, marrying elements of the Khmer Rouge and Nazism, with the economic and technological power of the USA. Terrifying.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/04/12/surviving-the-crackdown-in-xinjiang

    This is why we need to be wary of QR codes and their accoutrements.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,850

    Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
    Or finding Elvis (especially on the Moon)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134

    I have a very good friend who has taught English in Beijing for the last 25 years.

    Other than the European expats over there the locals really could not give the slightest shit about anything European related apparently, let alone UK.

    From my understanding of how he describes the culture of a quarter of the planet, they are almost without exception totally focused on domestic issues and I would transpose that to meaning there will be no interest in whatever the news in the UK may be.

    One aspect of being global superpower that they have nailed already, then?
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Well, England did become a republic/Commonwealth 144 years before France did, and 134 before the Yanks did.

    It's not our fault the Cromwells were twats!
    Oliver Cromwell was hugely capable, but the entire republican experiment came about a century too early. The majority in Parliament managed to agree that the King was a bit rubbish, but alas they came up with no workable alternative. So when he wouldn't be put back in place as a figurehead and they had to give him the chop, the Lord Protector and the Army basically tried to put Jesus in charge. Hardly the basis for a workable and sustainable settlement.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    ydoethur said:

    Not ‘historically.’ Recently. So, for example, Edward VII’s coronation was in 1902 (and was postponed for three months because he was ill in June) and Victoria’s in 1838, but George I was crowned on the 20th October 1714, less than three months after the death of Anne and only 32 days after landing in Britain. This is because until fairly recently the King had no powers to act until he was crowned and therefore the government had to be managed by regents until that time - e.g. Lord Burghley for James I and Margaret Beaufort for Henry VIII. This is also why Henry VII had himself crowned on the battlefield and made damn good and sure his wife (through whom he had effectively claimed the throne) wasn’t crowned Queen until several years after he had married her.
    TIL, but is that an English peculiarity then? ISTR some Holy Roman Emperors taking sometimes decades to get their arses down to Rome to be crowned by the Pope.
  • rpjs said:

    Coronations take a lot of planning and historically just a year or so after accession is quite fast. George VI's coronation was within six months of his accession as it had been planned for Edward VIII who, er, no longer had need of it.
    I've heard this said before, but is it really the planning that takes all that time, or the desire to have a period of mourning and not to rush after the death of the previous monarch?

    I mean, I know these are complex events, but there must surely have been enormous amounts of planning work already, and I struggle to believe a further year is really needed as opposed to simply being deemed appropriate.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814

    Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
    Well you know my views on this. I think we’re getting a steady drip of statements, leaks and confirmations on this until at some point in the not distant future the US President gives a speech that people finally take notice of. Doubt it’s this first report to Congress that triggers, I suspect the dusty CIA disclosure manual calls for a more gradual reveal than that. But I could be wrong.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    moonshine said:

    See Kurt’s comment. Hardly anyone in half the world cares what the Americans are doing, much less the Brits. Sure, a truck driver in rural Laos may see it flash up on the tv news when he pops up to the shop to get some red bull. But he’ll shrug and go about his day. David Beckham on the other hand...

    And in India I suspect the passing of David “Lovely Jubbly” Jason would illicit more genuine grief than the Queen among tuk tuk drivers.
    I just don't know why you think an assessment of genuine grief is relevant. If we judge global relevance based on number of people feeling something genuinely from a news story the only ones that matter are Chinese State news bulletins.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Historically, the biggest funerals have occurred in Republics:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_funerals
    Thank you for that non sequiter.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,852
    Andy_JS said:

    This is why we need to be wary of QR codes and their accoutrements.
    You got to feel for a country like Hong Kong. They have gone from English Liberty and Common Law.... to this. In a couple of years. Fuck

    I wonder if I will ever travel in Hong Kong or China again.

    Another scary thought is what China could do with a technology like GPT3 (or 4 or 5). They will get it.

    On the other hand we could always use it against THEM, I suppose
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134

    Exactly. Only aliens landing could beat it.
    When the aliens land, they still should only devote BBC1 to covering it. There will still be people expecting to see Masterchef on BBC2.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,692
    Pulpstar said:

    She's head of state of Australia, Canada, New Zealand as well as 3 pacific and much of the west Indies, was head of state of Sri Lanka for 20 years, head of state of Pakistan for 4 years, South Africa for 9 - a link both to a past era and Britain's extended hinterland in the world. She's probably the most important historical figure currently living on the entire planet from a historical and geographical perspective. Her death will be monumentally huge globally.
    She's currently head of state of:

    UK
    Australia
    Canada
    New Zealand
    Antigua & Barbuda
    Bahamas
    Barbados
    Belize
    Grenada
    Jamaica
    Papua New Guinea
    St Christopher & Nevis
    St Lucia
    St Vincent & The Grenadines
    Solomon Islands
    Tuvalu

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,247
    ydoethur said:

    The point being, there was no diplomatic faux pas. Michel and Erdogan acted in accordance with the correct protocol which under Article 15 confirmed in 2011 gives precedence to the President of the Council.

    So the only issue here is that von der Leyen is kicking up a fuss because she is a self-aggrandising fool who doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about and unnecessarily damaged relations with a regional power that was taking tentative steps back into the EU orbit.

    That’s on top of her other train wrecks over Astra Zeneca and its contracts, which she lied about to cover her mistakes.

    She is an accident looking for somewhere else to happen.
    One thing that is slightly unusual in her track record, is the blaming. She always blames specific people or companies for her failings, rather than being a bit nebulous.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134

    Oliver Cromwell was hugely capable, but the entire republican experiment came about a century too early. The majority in Parliament managed to agree that the King was a bit rubbish, but alas they came up with no workable alternative. So when he wouldn't be put back in place as a figurehead and they had to give him the chop, the Lord Protector and the Army basically tried to put Jesus in charge. Hardly the basis for a workable and sustainable settlement.
    Yet that period laid the foundations for much that makes our country what it is.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    moonshine said:

    Well you know my views on this. I think we’re getting a steady drip of statements, leaks and confirmations on this until at some point in the not distant future the US President gives a speech that people finally take notice of. Doubt it’s this first report to Congress that triggers, I suspect the dusty CIA disclosure manual calls for a more gradual reveal than that. But I could be wrong.
    I used to wonder whether something like that was really going on, but surely Trump would have blabbed it about five minutes after his inauguration if it was.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,852
    rpjs said:

    I used to wonder whether something like that was really going on, but surely Trump would have blabbed it about five minutes after his inauguration if it was.
    I have entertained similar thoughts recently. Odd rumours....
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814
    kle4 said:

    I think you're assessing it in a rather odd way. People don't need to be crying in the streets of Donetsk or Kampala about it for it to be a really big story.

    And because it will matter to this country, and several others, in a big way, other places will officially make sure to say how much it matters to them, making it a story. Would it not being the leading item in Uruguay mean it was not, at that time, likely to be the biggest news story on the planet?
    The news media obsess about things that normal people do not. That is essentially how you make money from politicalbetting is it not?

    In the Uk people will generally agree the Queen dying is very sad. “What a life. Won’t it be odd seeing Charles as King. Anyway, what’s on Netflix, the BBC have gone doo lally”.

    It won’t be a cause of national introspection in the way assumed.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,850
    moonshine said:

    Simon Cowell should do a programme for it. The 10 next in-lines all facing off against each other each week, shaking hands, cutting ribbons, signing red boxes, making small talk with a different guest African dictator each week.

    The winner is the one who the public judges to have said the least of any interest or consequence.

    Or to put another way, I think the death of the Queen is the most overhyped event ever in what it means for “what’s next”. It just don’t matter guv, it will be the same as the day before.
    In the sense of geopolitics or politics or just business it wont matter , but it will matter on a more social human level . It will be the end of an era in that so much has changed culturally as well as politically since she came to public life that a lot of people wil reflect on that (as they have done with Prince Philip) .To me it will be a sad event for that reason as I have been saddened by Prince Philips death .You don't have to be a ardent monarchist to appreciate the connection of them to the social change in the world over the last 70 years and therefore feel a loss. To all those moaning about the blanket coverage I personally think you are being a little shallow and also it is so easy to tailor your life to avoid it if you really want to with netflix etc
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    Well, England did become a republic/Commonwealth 144 years before France did, and 134 before the Yanks did.

    It's not our fault the Cromwells were twats!
    I wouldn't call it entirely the Cromwells fault (Oliver's at least) why the republic failed. It being a cobbled together and likely unpopular solution at a time of enormous social, relgious and political strife and its most powerful figure dying before it had a chance to properly settle seems more relevant.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    Leon said:

    You got to feel for a country like Hong Kong. They have gone from English Liberty and Common Law.... to this. In a couple of years. Fuck

    I wonder if I will ever travel in Hong Kong or China again.

    Another scary thought is what China could do with a technology like GPT3 (or 4 or 5). They will get it.

    On the other hand we could always use it against THEM, I suppose
    When I went to China a few years ago I didn't spring for the extra amount to have a few days in Hong Kong. Wish I had now - sure, I can still go, but it probably won't feel the same as it would have then.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    I've heard this said before, but is it really the planning that takes all that time, or the desire to have a period of mourning and not to rush after the death of the previous monarch?

    I mean, I know these are complex events, but there must surely have been enormous amounts of planning work already, and I struggle to believe a further year is really needed as opposed to simply being deemed appropriate.
    @ydoethur may well be able to correct me, but IIRC when Victoria died there was a real issue about what to do as it had been so long since there'd be an coronation, and that the twentieth century coronation protocols were to a large extent re-invented from scratch then.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134
    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    IanB2 said:

    One aspect of being global superpower that they have nailed already, then?
    Time for our regular reminder that China was indeed the world's pre-eminent state for about 17 of the last 20 centuries, and culturally regards itself as the centre of the world. The only periods since the time of Christ that one could reasonably describe it as anything else are the period since the European colonial powers and the United States industrialised, and prior to that perhaps the early Mongol Empire, and Rome from around the time of Augustus to the Antonine Plague.

    The re-emergence of China could well be regarded as merely a return to the status quo ante.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,575
    rpjs said:

    TIL, but is that an English peculiarity then? ISTR some Holy Roman Emperors taking sometimes decades to get their arses down to Rome to be crowned by the Pope.
    Most Holy Roman Emperors were never crowned at all (e.g. Richard of Cornwall d. 1272) so that’s not a great parallel. Kings of France on the other hand tended to be crowned quickly on either accession or reaching adulthood - Louis XVI succeeded his grandfather on May 10th and was crowned on June 11th, despite the formidable obstacles to planning and funding a coronation which was held in Reims. Even his brother, Charles, had a gap of just eight months between succeeding in September 1824 and being crowned in May 1825 - and the reason for that delay was nobody could agree on how to pay for it.

    On doing some more research, the first coronation to take place a year after succession was George III, because he was in the middle of negotiating a marriage agreement at the time and it was thought desirable to have the wedding and then a joint coronation (apparently, to save on expense) - this being made easier by the fact he was only 22 at the time he succeeded so it was considered appropriate to have an advisory council in place until his marriage. When George IV became king he had of course already been regent for nine years, and by the time he died almost all power had been transferred to Parliament anyway so his brother’s coronation had a symbolic rather than practical value.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 54,247
    kle4 said:

    At school I attended a conference where someone genuinely did say they did not believe in the term criminal. I don't recall if they had an alternative, or just wanted people to use some clunky descriptor like Citizen in Trouble or something.
    I had some conversations, a while ago, with some lawyers of the reforming type. They were all fired up for such terminology - their view of the criminal justice system was that all minor crimes should be abolished. Shoplifters, petty thieves etc.

    The interesting thing was how pejorative they were to the victims - who apparently didn't understand the damage they were doing to the shambolic lives of the petty criminals by vindictively pursuing prosecution.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,814
    edited April 2021
    Leon said:

    I have entertained similar thoughts recently. Odd rumours....
    Yes but Trump did. How do you think this started. People just weren’t paying attention because covid. Step 1 isn’t a big speech from the White House. It’s a softening up. The without comment video release from the Pentagon. The comments from not one but two recently retired CIA directors. And the ex National Intelligence Director. And any number of senior senators past and present from both sides.

    Step 2 is the factual risk assessment process by Congress. Which is underway.

    I don’t know what other steps there are but I’m now almost certain this ends with Biden or his successor giving the big speech.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134
    In the US, a baby has been shot dead by his three year old brother.
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,932
    Leon said:

    I have entertained similar thoughts recently. Odd rumours....
    Oh, go on, do tell.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,852
    kle4 said:

    When I went to China a few years ago I didn't spring for the extra amount to have a few days in Hong Kong. Wish I had now - sure, I can still go, but it probably won't feel the same as it would have then.
    Shame. It was an absolutely marvellous city. Incredible energy, food, pzazz, girls, a Singapore on speed.

    And the view of Hong Kong Island at night from Tsim Sha Tsui - peerless. Better than NYC for a sense of electrifying modernity

    However, I really think the operative would is "was". Talking to a China-expert friend the other day (goes there all the time, does biz) he felt it would now decline quite fast, as people refuse to work there, or even visit
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,511
    kle4 said:

    When I went to China a few years ago I didn't spring for the extra amount to have a few days in Hong Kong. Wish I had now - sure, I can still go, but it probably won't feel the same as it would have then.
    It is still a great city I'd imagine - some of the things I like about it not even the CCP can ruin.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,575
    edited April 2021
    rpjs said:

    @ydoethur may well be able to correct me, but IIRC when Victoria died there was a real issue about what to do as it had been so long since there'd be an coronation, and that the twentieth century coronation protocols were to a large extent re-invented from scratch then.
    Not true. In fact, there had been two in the previous twenty years. There was one for William in 1831, but at his insistence it was very low-key (it cost one-eighth of what George IV’s had cost in 1821).

    However, it was the first time a queen had been crowned since 1702, and the first time an unmarried monarch had been crowned since 1649 (in England, keep going back to 1625).I don’t know whether that had a bearing on the need to rewrite protocols. Not that George IV allowed his wife to attend his coronation anyway...

    Edit - apologies, I misread your post. I bought you said ‘succeeded’ not died. Disregard that.

    It was rewritten when she died to reflect all sorts of things, not least the fact her successor was also Emperor of India which she only became in 1876.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    edited April 2021
    IanB2 said:

    CNN: BBC deluged with complaints over wall-to-wall Prince Philip coverage

    Happens every royal death.
    Fishing said:

    It is still a great city I'd imagine - some of the things I like about it not even the CCP can ruin.
    I'm sure that's true, but it'd have been nice to have been before they did ruin the bits they could.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 59,852

    Oh, go on, do tell.
    No great insight or gossip, basically what moonshine says below, and pieced together

    I'm still 95% sure we have no proof of alien life, but a few years ago I would have been 99.9% sure, and would have wagered accordingly
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    HYUFD said:
    The Greens giving it a good go. Everyone else outside that top four bit-part players.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 5,511
    kle4 said:

    Happens every royal death. I'm sure that's true, but it'd have been nice to have been before they did ruin the bits they could.
    I did, and it's my favourite city in Asia.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,134
    edited April 2021
    The BBC has taken down its ‘click here to complain about the wall-to-wall HRH coverage’ page. Maybe offering a one-click fasttrack way to complain rather backfired?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    ydoethur said:

    Not true. In fact, there had been two in the previous twenty years. There was one for William in 1831, but at his insistence it was very low-key (it cost one-eighth of what George IV’s had cost in 1821).

    However, it was the first time a queen had been crowned since 1702, and the first time an unmarried monarch had been crowned since 1649 (in England, keep going back to 1625).I don’t know whether that had a bearing on the need to rewrite protocols. Not that George IV allowed his wife to attend his coronation anyway...
    I meant when Edward VII was crowned.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,795
    https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/10/media/bbc-prince-philip-complaints-scli-intl/index.html

    Why didn’t the BBC just use Beeb 1 for the rolling obituary?
This discussion has been closed.