Howdy, Stranger!

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

Biden’s ratings are now dire but he’s still the nomination favourite – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited October 11 in General
imageBiden’s ratings are now dire but he’s still the nomination favourite – politicalbetting.com

In poll oafter poll in the past week the messagev has been coming from American voters that they disapprove of Biden. One group which has seen a big hall in support is from indpendent voters who played such a role in helping him beat Trump eleven months ago.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • dodradedodrade Posts: 568
    First like Trump in 2024.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,258
    Can you imagine how unpopular he would be if the alternative didn't still seem to be Mr Trump?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,890
    dodrade said:

    First like Trump in 2024.

    Let's hope not, eh?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,890
    He's still more popular than Trump was at the same stage.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    *air punch*


    "Thailand plans to end Covid quarantine requirements for fully vaccinated travellers from at least 10 low-risk nations from 1 November, officials say.

    PM Prayuth Chan-ocha admitted that "this decision comes with some risk" - but it is seen as a key step to revive the country's collapsed tourism sector.

    The 10 nations seen as low risk include China, Germany, the UK and the US."


    Odd that five of the ten "low risk" countries just happen to be their five biggest tourist markets, but anyway. YAY

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58838189
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,869
    That looks rather more like standard than dire to me.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,602
    edited October 11
    Leon said:

    *air punch*


    "Thailand plans to end Covid quarantine requirements for fully vaccinated travellers from at least 10 low-risk nations from 1 November, officials say.

    PM Prayuth Chan-ocha admitted that "this decision comes with some risk" - but it is seen as a key step to revive the country's collapsed tourism sector.

    The 10 nations seen as low risk include China, Germany, the UK and the US."


    Odd that five of the ten "low risk" countries just happen to be their five biggest tourist markets, but anyway. YAY

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-58838189

    SeanT using GPT3 again, I see :lol:
  • Biden's ratings have taken a hit since AUKUS?

    AMIRIGHT?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 21,319
    Here is my mid-term prediction

    Dems pass both Infrastructure and Reconciliation - Dems Win House and Senate
    Dems pass Infrastructure only - GOP win House and Senate
    Dems pass neither bill - GOP win House and Senate Bigly
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,869
    Re previous thread.

    The best Bond is the one you saw first particularly if you were young - You Only Live Twice was mine.

    Wasn't Anne the last monarch to refuse royal approval for something parliament had passed ?
  • FPT
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,476
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,476
    ...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,678

    He's still more popular than Trump was at the same stage.

    But about as popular as Trump was near the end, although not right at the end admittedly.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,181

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
    I thought you were a Muslim, and a good one at that.
  • Farooq said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
    I thought you were a Muslim, and a good one at that.
    That comes with caveats.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    If the Democrats do badly in the midterms, especially if they lose the Senate as well as the House hard to see Biden running again.

    If so, the 2024 nomination battle for the Democrats would likely be between VP Harris and someone younger like Buttigieg
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 17,890
    RobD said:

    He's still more popular than Trump was at the same stage.

    But about as popular as Trump was near the end, although not right at the end admittedly.
    No. After the first 5 days Trump never reached the heady heights of Biden's current 44.6% popularity, according to 538's average.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.

    As an agnostic republican the Tory Party was never designed for you either
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,602

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
    I am the Only Republican In The PB Village!
  • kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
  • HYUFD said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.

    As an agnostic republican the Tory Party was never designed for you either
    Seems well designed for Liz Truss.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,181
    HYUFD said:

    If the Democrats do badly in the midterms, especially if they lose the Senate as well as the House hard to see Biden running again.

    If so, the 2024 nomination battle for the Democrats would likely be between VP Harris and someone younger like Buttigieg

    It's not, though, really. As long as Biden is in reasonable health it's not "hard" to see him standing again. He might not, but it's not like it would be a surprise if he did.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    Re previous thread.

    The best Bond is the one you saw first particularly if you were young - You Only Live Twice was mine.

    Wasn't Anne the last monarch to refuse royal approval for something parliament had passed ?

    I saw the firsr 5 Bond films
    that had been made on successive days at the Pavilion? at Picadilly Circus.. that would be 1968 and I was 15.. i was approached twice by dirty old men and hsd to move seat.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    I had no idea that the whole of Thailand has been on curfew for many months. All bars shut. No booze in restaurants. Everything closed by 9pm.

    From 40m tourists a year, they dropped to 70,000

    An incredible collapse
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    I don't think he thought that all the way through.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,720

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    It probably was, for most. Wasn't there a story that the Queen Mum popped into Eton and no-one told the headmaster?
  • kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    I don't think he thought that all the way through.
    Yah.

    He was a good man, he was very aware of the fact I was the only non white student at the school and made sure that wasn't a problem.

    Always believed in me, he always told me to stay humble, and I did whilst I was at school, it was university where I developed my legendary modesty
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited October 11
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition. Remember the unelected Lords frequently votes down Bills which were not in the Government's manifesto at the last general election.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,181

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    It probably was, for most. Wasn't there a story that the Queen Mum popped into Eton and no-one told the headmaster?
    I don't reckon most parents would trade in the birth of their first child for that time they saw the Queen three hundred yards away when they were 9. But I guess there are a few who really, really like the Royals that much.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,678

    RobD said:

    He's still more popular than Trump was at the same stage.

    But about as popular as Trump was near the end, although not right at the end admittedly.
    No. After the first 5 days Trump never reached the heady heights of Biden's current 44.6% popularity, according to 538's average.
    Im talking about the net ratings.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    It probably was, for most. Wasn't there a story that the Queen Mum popped into Eton and no-one told the headmaster?
    I don't reckon most parents would trade in the birth of their first child for that time they saw the Queen three hundred yards away when they were 9. But I guess there are a few who really, really like the Royals that much.
    He may have been exagerrating a tad (or assuming some poor life outcomes for all those kids), but monarchy isn't about logic anyway - people like being part of big events even if it makes no difference that they were, and they get caught up in royal pagentry or just mundane royal events for similar reasons.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,181
    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,198
    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,678
    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    That kind of misses the point of divine right. It would be statute right instead.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526

    Re previous thread.

    The best Bond is the one you saw first particularly if you were young - You Only Live Twice was mine.

    Wasn't Anne the last monarch to refuse royal approval for something parliament had passed ?

    The first Bond I saw was the Man with the Golden Gun. However, we recorded You Only Live twice on our VCR, so it's the Bond I've seen the most.

    Indeed, it had such an effect on me that I actually took gyrocopter lessons.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    edited October 11
    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    You now seem to have made my point for me.

    You started out by saying parliament couldn't change rules around royal assent as it would require royal assent etc, that is, you made a legal objection to them doing so. I suggested they could just do it and make it legal.

    You now appear to agree that they could as winners can make anything legal, and are simply disagreeing that they would, as they would lack the popular support to do so. That is, if they had the popular support for it they absolutely could make it legal.

    Thanks!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    I don't think he thought that all the way through.
    The rest of the time they were at a Catholic orphanage, so he may have been right.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    I don't think he thought that all the way through.
    The rest of the time they were at a Catholic orphanage, so he may have been right.
    Thus making it a very sad point and not the presumably uplifting intention.

  • Perhaps, maybe, could be worth noting, that the 1862 midterms were a bummer for Lincoln & the Republican Party. And that was with only the states North of the Mason-Dixon line voting!

    In fact, #16's re-election prospects looked dire right up to September 1864, when Gen. Sherman & his army finally won the Battle of Atlanta.

    Is Uncle Joe a 3rd-millennium reincarnation of Honest Abe? Doubtful. But certainly a wee bit tooooo soon to scratch him from your racing form.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,181
    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    I don't think he thought that all the way through.
    The rest of the time they were at a Catholic orphanage, so he may have been right.
    Thus making it a very sad point and not the presumably uplifting intention.
    "Meeting the Queen is better than being raped by the deacon!"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,440
    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Note me. I'm watching Deep Purple.
  • HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,776
    Farooq said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
    I thought you were a Muslim, and a good one at that.
    The Muslim Vicar of Bray?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    You now seem to have made my point for me.

    You started out by saying parliament couldn't change rules around royal assent as it would require royal assent etc, that is, you made a legal objection to them doing so. I suggested they could just do it and make it legal.

    You now appear to agree that they could as winners can make anything legal, and are simply disagreeing that they would, as they would lack the popular support to do so. That is, if they had the popular support for it they absolutely could make it legal.

    Thanks!
    Parliament would have to win a Civil War again and remove the Monarch again to make Bills without Royal Assent legal.

    However in this modern age of universal suffrage as long as the Monarch did not take on Parliament on an issue which was popular the Monarch would win the day on an unpopular Bill
  • MattW said:

    Farooq said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
    I thought you were a Muslim, and a good one at that.
    The Muslim Vicar of Bray?
    Iman al-Bray!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
    The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,473

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    Standard sort of format for this type of show. Basically an anti gambling piece, could be an extended press release for anti gambling lobbyiists. Zarb-Cousin who featured in it was at the forefront of the campaign recently on stakes in slot machines, also Cheap filler TV.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,440
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
    The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis
    How on earth can you know what would have happened in the next 300+ years if the Royalists had won. None of us know that.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,551

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
    I am the Only Republican In The PB Village!
    Not quite...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,776
    edited October 11
    Question mainly for @NickPalmer

    Was the housing stock in Denmark badly damaged in WW2?

    I'm looking for a comparator country for improvement to Housing Stock over a decade or two, to get a handle on how we compare with Energy Efficiency etc.

    I need one with a broadly similar age profile of stock to the UK.

    Very difficult as many countries were heavily demolished by either Germany or the UK, and that makes a huge difference to age profile of housing stock, which is a big difference.

    I think my only options with a similar climate which also matters, and emerged relatively unscathed, are Ireland or Denmark. Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and the rest having all been bombed heavily or fought over - if I have my history about right. Even in the UK, around 10% of housing stock was destroyed or damaged.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,535
    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,181
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
    The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis
    Presumably in the same way that the 1905 Russian revolution showed the tsarist regime could defeat any revolution.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,751
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
    The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis
    How on earth can you know what would have happened in the next 300+ years if the Royalists had won. None of us know that.
    It's a shame Ipsos MORI weren't operating in the 1600s.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,181
    MattW said:

    Question for @NickPalmer

    Was the housing stock in Denmark badly damaged in WW2?

    I'm looking for a comparator country for improvement to Housing Stock over a decade or two, to get a handle on how we compare with Energy Efficiency etc.

    I need one with a broadly similar age profile of stock to the UK.

    Very difficult as many countries were heavily demolished by either Germany or the UK, and that makes a huge difference to age profile of housing stock, which is a big difference.

    I think my only options with a similar climate which also matters, and emerged relatively unscathed, are Ireland or Denmark. Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and the rest having all been bombed heavily or fought over - if I have my history about right. Even in the UK, around 10% of housing stock was destroyed or damaged.

    I think the British probably did more damage to Copenhagen in 1807 than the Germans did in the 1940s.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited October 11
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
    The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis
    How on earth can you know what would have happened in the next 300+ years if the Royalists had won. None of us know that.
    Subsequent Monarchs may have been more reformist if needed, who knows.

    However given universal suffrage did not arrive for over 250 years after the English Civil War anyway even after Parliament won and only 5% had the vote even after the 1832 Reform Act, the Divine Right of Kings would have lasted in the UK certainly until the mid 19th century had the Royalists won the Civil War
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,551

    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
    There was a lot of coverage on BBC Parliament.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,515

    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
    Indeed, one wonders why they don’t. Cheap to produce, automatic balance as long as you show all the main conferences.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
    The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis
    Sorry, should have clarified I mean an English (British) 2nd Republic, likely more radical than the 1st (and so far only) though for how long? Certainly could not rule out series of monarchies versus republics as in France.

    The Glorious Revolution was a glorious fudge. A fact that has allowed for changing times, and going with the flow in ways seemingly unfathomable to its creators AND its inheritors, including those in generations yet unborn.
  • Foxy said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
    I am the Only Republican In The PB Village!
    Not quite...
    I have been a Republican most of my life, but of recent times I have had a great admiration for the Queen and she will be a great loss on her passing

    Thereafter the monarchy needs to be downsized considerably and even constitutionally
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 41,526
    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,515
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?
    Really good, right up to the point it went really wrong...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited October 11

    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
    Yes, they did not even show much on BBC Parliament either.

    It was mainly the leaders speeches and an hour at lunchtime on BBC2
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,710


    Perhaps, maybe, could be worth noting, that the 1862 midterms were a bummer for Lincoln & the Republican Party. And that was with only the states North of the Mason-Dixon line voting!

    In fact, #16's re-election prospects looked dire right up to September 1864, when Gen. Sherman & his army finally won the Battle of Atlanta.

    Is Uncle Joe a 3rd-millennium reincarnation of Honest Abe? Doubtful. But certainly a wee bit tooooo soon to scratch him from your racing form.

    For some of us, it is never too soon to prognosticate with absolute certainty based on one opinion poll, no matter how dodgy its provenance.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?
    France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 10,720
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    It probably was, for most. Wasn't there a story that the Queen Mum popped into Eton and no-one told the headmaster?
    I don't reckon most parents would trade in the birth of their first child for that time they saw the Queen three hundred yards away when they were 9. But I guess there are a few who really, really like the Royals that much.
    Perhaps but which makes the better anecdote years down the line?
  • kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
    The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis
    How on earth can you know what would have happened in the next 300+ years if the Royalists had won. None of us know that.
    It's a shame Ipsos MORI weren't operating in the 1600s.
    Best measure of 17th-century voter opinion, would come from comparison of receipts from taverns and other watering-holes, in the Tory compared to the Whig interest.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,535
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
    Yes, they did not even show much on BBC Parliament either.

    It was mainly the leaders speeches and an hour at lunchtime on BBC2
    I don't get how they can be the public service broadcaster and not be expected, even told, to do this basic service.

    And if they say it is too expensive then drop something that is popular but expensive that ITV could do.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    And we'd now be a republic
    Not if the Royalists had won the Civil War unless the Parliamentarians had won a subsequent one (remember the vast majority of the population did not get a vote at that time anyway whoever was in charge)
    Believe what Farooq is saying, is that a divine right monarchy would have led - as in France & Russia - to a REAL revolution culminating in an English / British Republic.
    The English Civil War is also known as the English Revolution by some historians, if it was defeated it would show the Monarch had enough support in the country and its key institutions and the military to defeat any Revolution in this hypothesis
    How on earth can you know what would have happened in the next 300+ years if the Royalists had won. None of us know that.
    It's a shame Ipsos MORI weren't operating in the 1600s.
    God's will is much clearer now we have polling companies.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,535

    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
    Indeed, one wonders why they don’t. Cheap to produce, automatic balance as long as you show all the main conferences.
    iirc they claimed it was too expensive.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 9,700
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    I don't think he thought that all the way through.
    The rest of the time they were at a Catholic orphanage, so he may have been right.
    Thus making it a very sad point and not the presumably uplifting intention.
    "Meeting the Queen is better than being raped by the deacon!"
    "better than being taken by the bishop" surely.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,197
    edited October 11
    Hmm - wonder how much AUUKUS has to do with Biden's ratings slump. America's alliance with France is surely the oldest in its history, the War of Independence was won with French help, and the sense of being revolutionary soulmates - symbolized by the very Statue of Liberty itself - is burned into to the soul of either nation. Humiliating the French while being in cahoots with the old colonial oppressor may not impressed some Americans of a particular mindset and historical perspective.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 51,979
    Today’s [vaccine] milestone in New South Wales, and rapidly rising rates across Australia, are due in large part to the vaccine partnership we signed with the UK.

    To all our British friends, particularly @sajidjavid, we say thank you once more.

    4 million steps back together again.


    https://twitter.com/AusHCUK/status/1447475860458573825?s=20
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,515

    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
    Indeed, one wonders why they don’t. Cheap to produce, automatic balance as long as you show all the main conferences.
    iirc they claimed it was too expensive.
    Probably no money left after flying thousands of journalists all over the world for special reports that the local based reporter could have done.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,678

    Hmm - wonder how much AUUKUS has to do with Biden's ratings slump. America's alliance with France is surely the oldest in its history, the War of Independence was won with French help, and the sense of being revolutionary soulmates - symbolized by the very Statue of Liberty itself - is burned into to soul of either nation. Humiliating the French while being in cahoots with the old colonial oppressor may not impressed some Americans of a particular mindset and historical perspective.

    Unless AUKUS was announced in August, nothing.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 38,602
    IshmaelZ said:

    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.
    God, what shitty school did you go to? We just had to sing Christian Hymns or Beatles songs (I think because the teacher who could play guitar was a fan of the Beatles).
    We had the Christian hymns as well.

    Our head master often said if we did something bad/wrong we were letting ourselves down, our school, our families, and the Queen.

    He often talked about the time 40,000 school children who welcomed the Queen at Hillsborough in the 1950s.

    Said it was the best day in the lives of those children.
    I don't think he thought that all the way through.
    The rest of the time they were at a Catholic orphanage, so he may have been right.
    Thus making it a very sad point and not the presumably uplifting intention.
    "Meeting the Queen is better than being raped by the deacon!"
    "better than being taken by the bishop" surely.
    "Bishop! Hey, man!"
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,515

    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
    Indeed, one wonders why they don’t. Cheap to produce, automatic balance as long as you show all the main conferences.
    iirc they claimed it was too expensive.
    I just can’t believe that. How much can a few cameras and a talking head cost really? Maybe get lineker to do it as a side line?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 69,757
    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    Question for @NickPalmer

    Was the housing stock in Denmark badly damaged in WW2?

    I'm looking for a comparator country for improvement to Housing Stock over a decade or two, to get a handle on how we compare with Energy Efficiency etc.

    I need one with a broadly similar age profile of stock to the UK.

    Very difficult as many countries were heavily demolished by either Germany or the UK, and that makes a huge difference to age profile of housing stock, which is a big difference.

    I think my only options with a similar climate which also matters, and emerged relatively unscathed, are Ireland or Denmark. Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and the rest having all been bombed heavily or fought over - if I have my history about right. Even in the UK, around 10% of housing stock was destroyed or damaged.

    I think the British probably did more damage to Copenhagen in 1807 than the Germans did in the 1940s.
    For some reason we don't tend to talk about that particular adventure much.

    I'm not sure this phrase is widely used enough to get its own wikipedia article though

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagenization

    Copenhagenization is an expression which coined in the early nineteenth century, and has seen occasional use since. The expression refers to a decisive blow delivered to a potential opponent while being at peace with that nation.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 4,710
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?
    France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries
    I guess the Huguenot rebellions were only a little local difficulty, then.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,181
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?
    France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries
    You're almost certainly wrong about that; the Enlightenment was a driving force behind the political currents that culminated in the French revolution. The scientific, literary, philosophical, and economic progress made during the 18th century would have happened anyway, and the dissemination of ideas that challenged the ossifying grip of kingly absolutism would have been in continuous conflict with it until the kingly absolutism broke.
    The liberalism of the 17-20th century Europe was an unstoppable tide, and the only options were to accommodate it or get smashed to bits by standing in its way.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,584

    Wasn't Anne the last monarch to refuse royal approval for something parliament had passed ?

    Yes (the Scottish Militia Bill in 1708) but her refusal was on the advice of her ministers.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,535

    Allie Hodgkins-Brown
    @AllieHBNews
    ·
    2m
    Tuesday’s Daily MAIL: “Covid: Elderly Were Just An Afterthought” #TomorrowsPapersToday
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,197
    RobD said:

    Hmm - wonder how much AUUKUS has to do with Biden's ratings slump. America's alliance with France is surely the oldest in its history, the War of Independence was won with French help, and the sense of being revolutionary soulmates - symbolized by the very Statue of Liberty itself - is burned into to soul of either nation. Humiliating the French while being in cahoots with the old colonial oppressor may not impressed some Americans of a particular mindset and historical perspective.

    Unless AUKUS was announced in August, nothing.
    AUUKUS was announced on 16 September. I'm seeing a dip from around that time.
  • Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?
    France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries
    You're almost certainly wrong about that; the Enlightenment was a driving force behind the political currents that culminated in the French revolution. The scientific, literary, philosophical, and economic progress made during the 18th century would have happened anyway, and the dissemination of ideas that challenged the ossifying grip of kingly absolutism would have been in continuous conflict with it until the kingly absolutism broke.
    The liberalism of the 17-20th century Europe was an unstoppable tide, and the only options were to accommodate it or get smashed to bits by standing in its way.
    Even the Duke of Wellington came to that conclusion . . . eventually.
  • RobD said:

    Hmm - wonder how much AUUKUS has to do with Biden's ratings slump. America's alliance with France is surely the oldest in its history, the War of Independence was won with French help, and the sense of being revolutionary soulmates - symbolized by the very Statue of Liberty itself - is burned into to soul of either nation. Humiliating the French while being in cahoots with the old colonial oppressor may not impressed some Americans of a particular mindset and historical perspective.

    Unless AUKUS was announced in August, nothing.
    AUUKUS was announced on 16 September. I'm seeing a dip from around that time.
    You could put a pistol to the heads of 9 out of 10 Americans, demand to tell them everything they know about AUKUS, and even if you spelled it out you'd be forced to blow their brains out.

    As with most foreign-policy treaty-mongering (for good, ill or non-of-the-above) its short-term impact on American voters & their voting intentions ranges from nil to zilch.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 15,437

    HYUFD said:

    Any comments on Paul Merson’s gambling programme on BBC ?

    None, was watching the New Labour doc on BBC2 as I expect most PBers were
    Just finished episode 1. One thing that comes across is how seriously party conferences were treated by BBC compared to now. I remember them anyway, but it is obvious from the clips that in 1980s and 1990s the Beeb pulled out the stops with hours of coverage and serious reporting.

    Now?

    We get an hour at best on BBC 2 between programmes about antique markets.

    I don't like BBC bashing but as the public service broadcaster they should show big chunks of the conferences.
    You could argue not showing them is a great public service!
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,776
    edited October 11

    RobD said:

    Hmm - wonder how much AUUKUS has to do with Biden's ratings slump. America's alliance with France is surely the oldest in its history, the War of Independence was won with French help, and the sense of being revolutionary soulmates - symbolized by the very Statue of Liberty itself - is burned into to soul of either nation. Humiliating the French while being in cahoots with the old colonial oppressor may not impressed some Americans of a particular mindset and historical perspective.

    Unless AUKUS was announced in August, nothing.
    AUUKUS was announced on 16 September. I'm seeing a dip from around that time.
    Mons. Macron was talking about American betrayal from just after then.

    Perhaps it was that, France being such a world power?

    It couldn't have been us - we are just a poodle with a fifth wheel.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 13,014
    kle4 said:

    Farooq said:

    MattW said:

    Question for @NickPalmer

    Was the housing stock in Denmark badly damaged in WW2?

    I'm looking for a comparator country for improvement to Housing Stock over a decade or two, to get a handle on how we compare with Energy Efficiency etc.

    I need one with a broadly similar age profile of stock to the UK.

    Very difficult as many countries were heavily demolished by either Germany or the UK, and that makes a huge difference to age profile of housing stock, which is a big difference.

    I think my only options with a similar climate which also matters, and emerged relatively unscathed, are Ireland or Denmark. Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and the rest having all been bombed heavily or fought over - if I have my history about right. Even in the UK, around 10% of housing stock was destroyed or damaged.

    I think the British probably did more damage to Copenhagen in 1807 than the Germans did in the 1940s.
    For some reason we don't tend to talk about that particular adventure much.

    I'm not sure this phrase is widely used enough to get its own wikipedia article though

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagenization

    Copenhagenization is an expression which coined in the early nineteenth century, and has seen occasional use since. The expression refers to a decisive blow delivered to a potential opponent while being at peace with that nation.
    I never knew we did that!

    I love the toll of losses at the end of the battle


    Britain: 42 dead

    Denmark: 3000

    Britain: 24 missing

    Denmark: entire fleet surrendered
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited October 11
    Farooq said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?
    France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries
    You're almost certainly wrong about that; the Enlightenment was a driving force behind the political currents that culminated in the French revolution. The scientific, literary, philosophical, and economic progress made during the 18th century would have happened anyway, and the dissemination of ideas that challenged the ossifying grip of kingly absolutism would have been in continuous conflict with it until the kingly absolutism broke.
    The liberalism of the 17-20th century Europe was an unstoppable tide, and the only options were to accommodate it or get smashed to bits by standing in its way.
    Not necessarily, certainly had the Royalists won the Civil War Divine Right would have lasted well into the 19th century in Britain, only being diluted with the expansion of the franchise at that time.

    Remember even after the French Revolution (which was over 100 years after the English Civil War, French absolutist monarchy returned in the form of Charles X in the early 19th century, Russia also had absolutist monarchy effectively until the 20th century.

    Spain also had absolutist monarchy through the 18th century
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,551

    Foxy said:

    FPT

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    I wonder how people would have reacted in January 2020 if King Charles III refused to give assent to the Brexit bill.

    Like those people who pretended to think the Queen should have refused Boris's prorogation?
    The Queen did not save us.
    Yeah, that was the silliness, spot on.
    I vowed never to sing God Save The Queen again.
    How often did you sing it before? I assume once a week at least.
    As a schoolboy I used to sing it nearly every day.

    As an adult I used to sing it at England football/rugby union matches but with not much gusto.

    As agnostic republican God Save the Queen isn't really designed for me.
    I am the Only Republican In The PB Village!
    Not quite...
    I have been a Republican most of my life, but of recent times I have had a great admiration for the Queen and she will be a great loss on her passing

    Thereafter the monarchy needs to be downsized considerably and even constitutionally
    Being a Republican (in a British sense) has nothing to do with like or dislike of the current Monarch. It is a dislike of the institution.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,468
    edited October 11
    TimT said:

    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:



    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    .

    Sort of on topic.

    Prince Charles is on the side of insulate Britain.

    https://www.gbnews.uk/news/prince-charles-understands-extinction-rebellion-and-insulate-britain-protests/139455

    Can't wait for him to become Monarch.

    He'll probably send for Caroline Lucas for PM.
    Can't wait.

    I'm really looking forward to when he inevitably refuses to give royal assent to some bill he doesn't look.
    Charles is more intelligent than both his mother and his son but less politically astute than they are.

    However if a bill was unpopular according to polls he would probably get away with refusing to give royal assent if he tried to do so
    Parliament would immediately make refusing royal assent impossible. In theory people might support that kind of thing, but in practice they'd see we don't want kings with that ability, it only still exists because it won't be used.
    It couldn't, unless it had royal assent for it.

    Remember the Government are still the Monarch's ministers. Both Parliament and the Monarch's approval is needed to make statute laws
    Yeah, they would change that.

    Parts of our system are legal fictions, and if people tried to make the fictions real, something explicit would be put in place instead. I'm a monarchist, but it's monarchism on the basis the monarch does as they are told.

    Parliament couldn't legally put Charles I on trial either, or make laws, but it didn't stop them doing so for 11 years in various guises. Was the Convention Parliament acting 'legally' by saying James II had abdicated in 1689?

    People decide what is legal afterwards.

    But in fact if Charles did try something like that I bet he would then sign an Act that he could not do it again in future - as Parliament would make it very clear where the power lies.

    I don't think you appreciate how much the power of our system is on the basis of people not abusing theoretical powers. Consent for that system would collapse if they were subject to personal whims of a king.
    They can't change that.

    Charles 1st was executed as he tried to rule without Parliament and raise his own armies.

    A Monarch vetoing a Bill which was unpopular would be ruling with Parliament but just having more Crown input.
    Charles would be perfectly entitled to do so and nothing Parliament could do about it, if he exercised such powers he would obviously not try and restrict his royal prerogative
    I love the sidestepping. Parliament did not have the 'legal' authority to put a king on trial and execute him, no matter what he did, not with the legal system they had*. You think Charles I, or any previous King, gave assent to a law that said 'You can execute a king'?

    They, or rather a portion of it, just gave themselves that power when they felt it was necessary.

    And that is the point, HYUFD. It doesn't matter what is written on paper if people and those in power decide to do something different. Charles II was, from view of the authorities in 1660, in his 12th year of being king, but that hadn't mattered up to then. Yes, Charles III can theoretically refuse consent, he has that legal power. But the idea that Parliament is therefore helpless to do something about it? Legally, yes, but not in reality.

    *I'd recommend The Tyrannicide Brief, all about the trial of Charles I, which talks about how they made a real effort to make it as fair and legal as possible, and creatively used what law there was to suggest it was legal, but it really wasn't. There wasn't a way to make it so, hence the need to operate outside it.

    'They can't change that' is just a ridiculous statement to make. It's Charles I or Saddam Hussein defence that the courts trying them had no power to do so. Maybe, but it didn't save them!

    Honestly, you're fantastic at turning monarchists into republicans if you're arguing Charles could be a tyrant and no one could stop him.
    Parliament only executed Charles I after they won a War against his forces first, it was called a Civil War for a reason. Saddam was also only executed having lost power after the Iraq War.

    In reality Parliament could force the Monarch to sign popular Bills yes, Parliament would be powerless to force the Monarch to sign unpopular Bills however if the Monarch disagreed with them too
    That's where we disagree - take the King aside and say 'My party would have no choice but to support a republican position if you refuse to pass our legislation, which we have a democratic mandate to do' and he'd come to heel, since you've been arguing Charles is smart. What idiot monarch would risk the demise of their throne on the basis that opinion polling shows opposing a single bill would be popular?

    We've had this dance before in the period after 1689 but before the modern age, when Kings still had significant actualy authority. They lost that fight, there's a reason it has been so long that assent has not been refused - because each and every one of them realised it was a dumb thing to do. You think 300 years of not refusing assent was because there was never something the government wanted to do which was unpopular, which the monarch opposed?

    And the point about Charles I was not that it took a war, but that what was considered 'legal' changes depending on what is convenient. It took far less bloodshed (though not zero) for Parliament to ignore that James II clearly had not abdicated but to say that he had in effect done so.
    No, Charles could merely say in response 'polls show the public back my opposition to this Bill so tough.' If the governing party took a republican position on an unpopular Bill not in its manifesto it would likely simply lose the next general election to the Opposition.

    James II was trying to impose Catholicism on England, that was why he could not prevail as the public were strongly Protestant, had the public wanted a return to Catholicism Parliament would have had to bow to his demands
    I think you keep missing the key point that what they did was obviously not legal, but it did not matter. Which I'd think is important when you take very legalistic positions. Or rather were, as you seem to now just be in favour of mob rule.
    Had Charles I won the Civil War the Divine Right of Kings would have become the law
    How did the Divine Right of Kings work out in other countries where it was tried?
    France did not have a Revolution or Civil War of any significance on Monarchical power until the French Revolution, had the Englsh Monarchy won the Civil War that would have entrenched Divine Right for centuries
    I guess the Huguenot rebellions were only a little local difficulty, then.
    Religious conflicts, not wars over Monarchy v Parliament
This discussion has been closed.