Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
I think for William and Kate that's true, the public, largely, seem unconvinced by Charles. If the republicans want to win they'll go for it around 5 or 6 years into Charles' reign, I don't see him being a particularly popular monarch with anyone under 60.
And he can seriously alienate many if he intervenes more obviously in politics and legislation. It's already caused some grief in Scotland - the SG being something of a whipping boy in an impossible position because it's tried to maintain some sort of protocol and confidence over this when opposition pols have jumped on it (understandably).
I suspect he will not dare intervene once king. He will not be unaware his reign would be a moment of relative fragility and questioning for the institution. What he did as heir I doubt he will as king.
Lord Frost would be a perfectly capable PM however I highly doubt he could give up a seat in the Lords to fight a by election he might well lose to the Liberal Democrats for a miniscule chance of PM for which there is currently no vacancy and won't be on the Tory side unless the PM resigns or is removed by a VONC
He is the last person the conservative party need just now
If you support the hereditary principle you have to accept the rough with the smooth. Fortunately we have already established that the genetic lottery is not a firm basis on which to run the actual government.
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
I think for William and Kate that's true, the public, largely, seem unconvinced by Charles. If the republicans want to win they'll go for it around 5 or 6 years into Charles' reign, I don't see him being a particularly popular monarch with anyone under 60.
And he can seriously alienate many if he intervenes more obviously in politics and legislation. It's already caused some grief in Scotland - the SG being something of a whipping boy in an impossible position because it's tried to maintain some sort of protocol and confidence over this when opposition pols have jumped on it (understandably).
I suspect he will not dare intervene once king. He will not be unaware his reign would be a moment of relative fragility and questioning for the institution. What he did as heir I doubt he will as king.
Fair enough. I should hav e said 'rightly' rather than 'understandably'. The thought did occur to me. But then I recalled that even HMtQ effectively did the same thing, only farf more discreetly, as I understand it. It will be interesting.
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
I think for William and Kate that's true, the public, largely, seem unconvinced by Charles. If the republicans want to win they'll go for it around 5 or 6 years into Charles' reign, I don't see him being a particularly popular monarch with anyone under 60.
And he will probably get a honeymoon period so the institution could get complacent after 'seeing off' the inevitable calls force rethink immediately after accession (in this country anyway)
I would be utterly shocked if Priti declines the US request. Had she been HS back in the day, Gary McKinnon would, more likely than not, currently be in solitary confinement at Terra Haute.
Now Assange is an odious man who to an extent deserves most of what is coming to him. Perhaps just not in the USA.
Assange tried to help Trump in 2016 so I don’t care what happens to him . Good riddance .
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
This has literally happened at every jubilee: silver, gold, diamond.. "it's not relevant", "no-one cares", "it will be a washout" etc.
And then it happens, it's amazing and everyone enjoys it and remembers it.
Yes. Exactly the same was being said back in 2002 and 2012. There were are few things I'm sure of in politics, but one of them is that the monarchy will still be around in 50 years time, regardless of the views of Liverpool football fans.
See that's interesting. I remember 2012 vividly. It was the Olympics. I can't recall a Jubilee at all. Perhaps Monarchists turn up, street party with like-minded folk, have a wonderful time with a lifetime of memories to treasure, and assume everyone else is doing the same? I presume we had a Bank Holiday? I guess I went to the beach if it didn't rain.
Perhaps Luton was unusual, but there were events to celebrate the Jubilee all over the town.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
I think for William and Kate that's true, the public, largely, seem unconvinced by Charles. If the republicans want to win they'll go for it around 5 or 6 years into Charles' reign, I don't see him being a particularly popular monarch with anyone under 60.
I'm not sure actually. He seems quite popular on walkabouts with people of all backgrounds and ages.
TSE puns normally deserve lifetime exile on the Isle of Portland, or perhaps Thanet. But this title - OK.
Not sure if Rockall is available. Is the UK claim not unrecignised by Ireland on the basis of proximity?
(Rockall being closer to the UK than to Ireland.)
Sgeir Rocail is indeed disputed between UK and Ireland. And it's not as if the UK got round to claiming it before 1955, when they got twitchy about their missile range launching from Benbecula.
Not quite true. It was generally assumed to be an off lying islet of Harris/St Kilda. Legally part of Inverness-shire isn’t it?
Wiki says part of Harris (we don't have Invernessshire as a legal entity now, but yes, it would be the same thing).
Inverness-shire still exists for some legal purposes, doesn’t it? Land registration? And old statutes naming it are surely still applicable?
The problem David Frost has is his total inability to engage with disputants in an argument. The British historic virtue of finding "reasonable compromise" has been abandoned by many Brexiteers, with comments such as "you lost, get over it". In the case of Frost he can not construct a compromise that works, even for his own side. It is this total lack of moderation that has caused so much damage to the country over the past few years. Having voted to leave, the Ultras have pushed policies that, if announced during the referendum campaign, would have led to certain defeat. Even apart from the issue of being in the Lords, Frost would last about 3 minutes as his intransigence bled away support in all parts of Parliament. The way that he walked out of the cabinet also raises questions of personal integrity and fitness for office.
Most people understand that breaking all links with the EU carries a significant economic cost, which Britain is now paying. Triggering A14 of the protocol is a further step away from effective working arrangements with the EU and will cause significant further damage. Frost and Johnson were warned that their "wheeze" of putting a tarrif border internally between GB and NI was problematic, but they chose to do so, indeed it was their own proposal. So now we find that Lord Frost cannot even find common ground with his own proposal. This is fundamentally unserious, and it is also showing bad faith in negotiations, which is both stupid and dangerous, since it makes it progressively harder to make further agreements when you renege on the one you have already negotiated.
So I dont think Frost has a cat in hell´s chance of getting to number 10, and that the electorate is getting heartily sick of the constant Trumpian (or even Putinist) doubling down on issues of crisis and dispute. Sooner or later the UK needs to codify a set of compromises with the EU, which is what the majority of the British voters clearly support. Whereas a government led by Johnson offers only posturing and bad faith. The voters are getting very tired of this. Revolutions usually devour their children and the Brexit revolution is unlikely to be the exception. I think a Tory rout on the scale of 1997 is rapidly increasing in likelihood, and this is partly because the incremental costs of Brexit will get disproportionate blame as the British economy gets battered over the next few years.
While all economies will be damaged by the process of deglobalisation exacerbated by the impact of the Russian war in Ukraine, Britain faces extra pressures because of Brexit and the voters will hardly fail to notice weaker British economic performance. Unless the Tories can find an off ramp -to use the jargon of the day- they are going to be in serious trouble. Any Conservative leader will struggle. Frost will never make it.
The latest polls only give a hung parliament, nowhere near 1997 style Labour landslide
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
If the firm has a clue Charles will pass and stick William on the throne. A geriatric King Chuck could be the end of things from their perspective.
Rubbish, 60% of voters have a favorable view of Prince Charles now
Charles seems a gentle enough old fella. Was ahead of the mainstream on things like global warming.
Really though the monarchy is just bizarre. Some odd concept of having someone at the top just because they can trace their genes back to Cerdic, even though we probably all could if we were happy to flip between maternal and paternal lines in the records. Let’s face it, the number of illegitimate children thrown in the mix makes it a farce anyway.
Let Charles be the epilogue for the Queen’s long reign, with the goal of calling it a day after him.
Absolutely not, the monarchy will continue for centuries
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
I would be utterly shocked if Priti declines the US request. Had she been HS back in the day, Gary McKinnon would, more likely than not, currently be in solitary confinement at Terra Haute.
Now Assange is an odious man who to an extent deserves most of what is coming to him. Perhaps just not in the USA.
I'm not at all surprised by Hitchens' view. He views the West as a degenerate hell-hole. Assange is anti-West, therefore my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
If the firm has a clue Charles will pass and stick William on the throne. A geriatric King Chuck could be the end of things from their perspective.
Rubbish, 60% of voters have a favorable view of Prince Charles now
Charles seems a gentle enough old fella. Was ahead of the mainstream on things like global warming.
Really though the monarchy is just bizarre. Some odd concept of having someone at the top just because they can trace their genes back to Cerdic, even though we probably all could if we were happy to flip between maternal and paternal lines in the records. Let’s face it, the number of illegitimate children thrown in the mix makes it a farce anyway.
Let Charles be the epilogue for the Queen’s long reign, with the goal of calling it a day after him.
Absolutely not, the monarchy will continue for centuries
I'd be interested to know how Stuart thinks the UK entry in Eurovision managed to come second.
Worse than that — Britain usurped Sweden who were expected (by the betting markets) to come second to Ukraine.
Finally seen the top four songs - the UK, Swedish, Spanish and Ukrainian songs. UK song was tedious, Spanish generic sexploitation. I genuinely think the Swedish and Ukrainian songs were better and as the Ukrainian one was not an Adele-copycat, I'd have given it to them on the merits.
TSE puns normally deserve lifetime exile on the Isle of Portland, or perhaps Thanet. But this title - OK.
Not sure if Rockall is available. Is the UK claim not unrecignised by Ireland on the basis of proximity?
(Rockall being closer to the UK than to Ireland.)
Sgeir Rocail is indeed disputed between UK and Ireland. And it's not as if the UK got round to claiming it before 1955, when they got twitchy about their missile range launching from Benbecula.
Not quite true. It was generally assumed to be an off lying islet of Harris/St Kilda. Legally part of Inverness-shire isn’t it?
Wiki says part of Harris (we don't have Invernessshire as a legal entity now, but yes, it would be the same thing).
Inverness-shire still exists for some legal purposes, doesn’t it? Land registration? And old statutes naming it are surely still applicable?
Of course, so it does. Sheriff court trials, probate registers, that sort of thing too.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
You're projecting your views on to the mass of the population, who disagree. This is not a poor country, As I said, if people disliked pomp and ceremony, Republics would not adopt pomp and ceremony.
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
I think for William and Kate that's true, the public, largely, seem unconvinced by Charles. If the republicans want to win they'll go for it around 5 or 6 years into Charles' reign, I don't see him being a particularly popular monarch with anyone under 60.
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
I think for William and Kate that's true, the public, largely, seem unconvinced by Charles. If the republicans want to win they'll go for it around 5 or 6 years into Charles' reign, I don't see him being a particularly popular monarch with anyone under 60.
There will obviously never be a referendum on the monarchy while we have a Tory government and the LDs also back keeping the monarchy.
So to get such a referendum you would need a Labour majority government or one propped up by the SNP. However even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy unlike his predecessor the republican Corbyn and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy too
So, do we get to host next year (assuming Ukraine won't be able to)?
I’d have thought Poland would be the obvious place to host it.
I read somewhere if the host can't host it goes to one of the big 4 paymasters (UK, France, Germany, Italy). Given they came bottom I think we can safely rule out France & Germany.....Italy has just hosted it.....
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
I would be utterly shocked if Priti declines the US request. Had she been HS back in the day, Gary McKinnon would, more likely than not, currently be in solitary confinement at Terra Haute.
Now Assange is an odious man who to an extent deserves most of what is coming to him. Perhaps just not in the USA.
She's obviously going to do what Johnson tells her. He'd probably quite enjoy the populist spasm that would come from telling the USA to stick their extradition request. Also curries favour with Australia; a country with the which the tories are mysteriously obsessed.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Isn't it amazing how conversations with anonymous figures will always confirm one's own prejudices?
Yougov reguarly conducts surveys of attitudes towards the monarchy, Public opinion is a good deal more favourable towards the Queen, William and Kate, Charles, than it is towards Harry and Meghan.
Horrific statistic on radio after racist killing in Buffalo. The shooter believes in 'White replacement theory' which suggests that White Americans are deliberately being replaced by immigrants.'They did a poll in Associated press four days ago which found that a third of Americans believe in it' according to BBC News
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
It has to be a party political politician however who half the country will hate, see France and the USA
It doesn't have to be. May countries have low-profile presidents who seem to be acceptable to large strands of political opinion.
Countries generally relatively small not permanent members of the UN Security Council with nuclear weapons who are also top 10 economies in the G7 and G20 like the UK.
If we were a republic we would have to have a grand imperial Presidency like that of the USA and France to reflect our power in the world and our current President would be President Johnson who would reside at Buckingham Palace and be head of the armed forces.
Low profile ceremonial Presidents like those in Germany or Ireland or Israel are also pointless, they have no more power than constitutional monarchs but nobody has heard of them outside their own nation so they do not even fulfil their role of advertising the nation like the Queen
One thing is certain. If Britain replaced the monarch with a president it would never be on the French or US model. Of course it would be something like Germany or Ireland or many other countries which are parliamentary democracies with prime ministers as heads of government holding executive power.
Whether that would be good or bad for Britain's image abroad is debatable.
Unless 18 to 24 year olds change their minds we would have Labour governments for all eternity and would have one now given 18 to 24s have voted Labour at every UK general election since 1983!
However. Observe the all UK figures instead. There is a substantial minority who think the Monarchy should come to an end soon. Ultra Monarchists could lift their heads from their grovelling and reflect exactly why that should be so?
Yes leftwing socialists make up about a third of the UK population and are also Republicans. No surprise there, who cares, certainly not me, they can be ignored as on everything else
It truly is baffling. "I'm the only Tory in the village" who doesn't have a clue what his party actually believes in. One third of the population "can be ignored"?
Ignored?
Remember how Harold Macmillan campaigned on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built? Or even Thatcher with help to buy to bring the "ignored" on board? Or her appointing commissions to pour investment into post-industrial areas, Liverpool being one of them?
Ignored? You are a laughable pitiable fool of a politician. Perfect for the crooked lying corrupt Conservative party of today. Congratulations.
Of course, we have a Tory majority government so socialists can and will be ignored.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
The cost of living crisis is not unique to the UK but right across the globe and all countries are struggling with the consequences
Whilst I agree with HYUFD that we are not psephologically in 1992-7 territory, I am now convinced that we are viscerally.
Not for a quarter of a century have I felt such a growing tide of change. The polls may not yet reflect it, and that's partly the fault of Starmer and Corbyn's legacy, but the Conservative reign is coming to an end as assuredly as that of Her Majesty the Queen.
First, unlike Lord Frost at Tiverton or anywhere else.
You're right TSE.
And well done for the win yesterday. I see the Mail on Sunday are outraged at the booing of Prince William and jeering during Abide with Me & God Save the Queen. Tory MP and former Culture Secretary Karen Bradley said: 'It is utterly unacceptable and disgraceful that fans booed Prince William. I would urge the FA to take all necessary action and pursue those responsible.'
Last time I checked the UK was still a free country. If people wish to boo, or demonstrate, they should be free to. The Nasty Party thinks not.
Britain is a free country even after the Police and Crime Act but even if booing Prince William is justified, should not Abide With Me be sacred? Worse, from the Mail:-
The jeers started during a rendition of the Christian hymn Abide With Me by the 60-strong B Positive Choir, whose members have sickle cell disease or who have close friends or family suffering from it.
Hmm. A choir with sickle cell disease. That would be Black people, wouldn't it?
I’m not sure what your point is.
I think it’s great that the Mail focused on their charitable purpose not their colour
Unless 18 to 24 year olds change their minds we would have Labour governments for all eternity and would have one now given 18 to 24s have voted Labour at every UK general election since 1983!
However. Observe the all UK figures instead. There is a substantial minority who think the Monarchy should come to an end soon. Ultra Monarchists could lift their heads from their grovelling and reflect exactly why that should be so?
Yes leftwing socialists make up about a third of the UK population and are also Republicans. No surprise there, who cares, certainly not me, they can be ignored as on everything else
It truly is baffling. "I'm the only Tory in the village" who doesn't have a clue what his party actually believes in. One third of the population "can be ignored"?
Ignored?
Remember how Harold Macmillan campaigned on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built? Or even Thatcher with help to buy to bring the "ignored" on board? Or her appointing commissions to pour investment into post-industrial areas, Liverpool being one of them?
Ignored? You are a laughable pitiable fool of a politician. Perfect for the crooked lying corrupt Conservative party of today. Congratulations.
Of course, we have a Tory majority government so socialists can and will be ignored.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
Ironic post. Right to buy was originally a Labour policy.
Unless 18 to 24 year olds change their minds we would have Labour governments for all eternity and would have one now given 18 to 24s have voted Labour at every UK general election since 1983!
However. Observe the all UK figures instead. There is a substantial minority who think the Monarchy should come to an end soon. Ultra Monarchists could lift their heads from their grovelling and reflect exactly why that should be so?
Yes leftwing socialists make up about a third of the UK population and are also Republicans. No surprise there, who cares, certainly not me, they can be ignored as on everything else
It truly is baffling. "I'm the only Tory in the village" who doesn't have a clue what his party actually believes in. One third of the population "can be ignored"?
Ignored?
Remember how Harold Macmillan campaigned on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built? Or even Thatcher with help to buy to bring the "ignored" on board? Or her appointing commissions to pour investment into post-industrial areas, Liverpool being one of them?
Ignored? You are a laughable pitiable fool of a politician. Perfect for the crooked lying corrupt Conservative party of today. Congratulations.
Of course, we have a Tory majority government so socialists can and will be ignored.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
FFS. The people she sold council houses to were Labour voters - who became Tlory voters. Your problem is that you think ONLY Tory forever voters are important. Which is absurd. As YOU VOTED PLAID CYMRU.
By your own idiotic definition you are not a true Tory.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
We've withstood worse, during my lifetime. A liberal democracy whose GDP per head is $45,000 honestly does not have a huge deal to worry about.
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
I think for William and Kate that's true, the public, largely, seem unconvinced by Charles. If the republicans want to win they'll go for it around 5 or 6 years into Charles' reign, I don't see him being a particularly popular monarch with anyone under 60.
And he can seriously alienate many if he intervenes more obviously in politics and legislation. It's already caused some grief in Scotland - the SG being something of a whipping boy in an impossible position because it's tried to maintain some sort of protocol and confidence over this when opposition pols have jumped on it (understandably).
I suspect he will not dare intervene once king. He will not be unaware his reign would be a moment of relative fragility and questioning for the institution. What he did as heir I doubt he will as king.
As I think I've mentioned before, I corresponded as MP with his office about his willingness to intervene in public controversy, which seemed to me unwise even when I agreed with him. I had a two-page reply which essentially said he felt he should use his position to contribute to the betterment of the country, but would withdraw from the debate where it became an issue of party controversy - they gave an example (supporting hunting, I think) where he'd previously expressed a view, but not recently.
I met him briefly when he visited Broxtowe, incidentally - perfectly pleasant.
Essentially I think he needs to choose between being a campaigner for causes that he supports or a constitutional monarch in waiting, with all the self-imposed restraint which that implies. I'm not sure he'll be happy doing the latter, but there are lots of people like me who think the monarchy is a bit odd but part of our tradition, so OK so long as it's strictly constitutional. A monarch who interferes to pursue personal beliefs is definitely not appropriate for today's world, and would undermine support for the institution.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
The cost of living crisis is not unique to the UK but right across the globe and all countries are struggling with the consequences
Oh its global alright. But the impact locally in any given economy is always local. And the UK-specific higher energy prices due to our poor generating capacity and the uk-specific food price inflation due to our higher import costs hit us hard. Other countries have their own specific issues, but we can't just say "its global" and pretend we haven't harmed ourselves.
Once Charles and William actually start performing the role of monarch, and it becomes normalised, then 'support for the monarchy' will trend back up to its longstanding mean.
I think for William and Kate that's true, the public, largely, seem unconvinced by Charles. If the republicans want to win they'll go for it around 5 or 6 years into Charles' reign, I don't see him being a particularly popular monarch with anyone under 60.
He'll be fine. The Tories won't try and get rid of him, and Labour would just be making themselves more vulnerable on cultural issues by considering republicanism. To get a republic, you need a government who'd actively try and bring it about. I can't see where it's coming.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Isn't it amazing how conversations with anonymous figures will always confirm one's own prejudices?
Yougov reguarly conducts surveys of attitudes towards the monarchy, Public opinion is a good deal more favourable towards the Queen, William and Kate, Charles, than it is towards Harry and Meghan.
Also, public opinion can move in more than one direction.
There's nothing to say that Charles and William can't increase their popularity even more.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
A liberal democracy whose GDP per head is $45,000 honestly does not have a huge deal to worry about.
Tone deaf and you have the gall to accuse me of speaking with "anonymous" people who confirm "my own prejudices". The people I was with on Friday were my brother and sister. My other sister, a formerly loyal lover of Boris, has turned against him. There's a reason the Queen's Speech was greeted with such ridicule given the setting and there's a reason some people even booed Prince William and the National Anthem. The anger out there is growing.
You're complacently well off: I get it. Most of the rest of the country is now really starting to feel the pinch: big time. We are worse off than most of our competitors thanks to glaring blunders by the buffoon in No.10 and his rich Non-dom accomplice in No.11.
This is without doubt empirically the toughest economic moment of the last 40 years.
Horrific statistic on radio after racist killing in Buffalo. The shooter believes in 'White replacement theory' which suggests that White Americans are deliberately being replaced by immigrants.'They did a poll in Associated press four days ago which found that a third of Americans believe in it' according to BBC News
So, do we get to host next year (assuming Ukraine won't be able to)?
I’d have thought Poland would be the obvious place to host it.
I read somewhere if the host can't host it goes to one of the big 4 paymasters (UK, France, Germany, Italy). Given they came bottom I think we can safely rule out France & Germany.....Italy has just hosted it.....
We saw with William and Kate's trip to the Caribbean that as soon as anything the Royal Family does is challenged widely enough as being laughable they and the wider establishment quickly fold and say "well yes it's time to drop that bit and modernise".
Now we're told Charles wants to slim down the Royal Family. Nobody is saying "No, we need at least this many Royals, we can't manage with any fewer".
Indeed in recent years Philip, Andrew, Harry, Meghan and the Queen to a large extent have all stopped doing Royal engagements with nobody replacing them to a significant degree. Have there been reports of a shortage of Royals, with nobody to do important engagements? No, stuff has just been dropped and nobody has noticed or cared.
Next we have William apparently wanting to drop people bowing and curtsying. Again nobody is saying "No, we need to keep that, people should do it".
The overall point is that it's one way traffic - everyone knows that everything that is being done is only being done because it always has been and very little if any of it makes any sense. Hence as soon as any individual bit is seriously challenged nobody attempts to defend it.
The work is picked up by Lord Lieutenants and their Deputies.
The reality is you don’t need *anyone* to officially open a new office or whatever. But people like it when someone shows up - it could just as easily be a low rent celebrity
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Isn't it amazing how conversations with anonymous figures will always confirm one's own prejudices?
Yougov reguarly conducts surveys of attitudes towards the monarchy, Public opinion is a good deal more favourable towards the Queen, William and Kate, Charles, than it is towards Harry and Meghan.
Also, public opinion can move in more than one direction.
There's nothing to say that Charles and William can't increase their popularity even more.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
You're projecting your views on to the mass of the population, who disagree. This is not a poor country, As I said, if people disliked pomp and ceremony, Republics would not adopt pomp and ceremony.
Plus I think they have already, I believe, indicated paring down to three or four working royals.
Even in poor countries they have pomp and deference for leaders (some to a shocking degree), the idea that is really the issue (as opposed to the principle of a monarchical system, for some), makes as little sense as when people claim minor arcane procedures or traditions of the Commons are why people don't connect with it as an institution, as though modernising to allow them to directly name one another would register with the public.
People have no nuance on this issue. Nothing is a certain to continue on forever, but neither is polling of younger people in particular not being enthusiastic or the jubilee not exciting people a certain indication that 'the country's moving on'. It's like people think the monarchy has never had a difficult period before. And it's not even at that period yet, people just think it might be approaching one.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
I'm not sure. I think Charles reign will be short (will probably go from the longest to one of the shortest Monarchs) - Mainly because I think he will hate every moment of being King.
Despite waiting all these years to ascend I suspect when he gets there he will find the limitations of the job suffocating and impossible. He comes across as a fundamentally unhappy person who will never find true fulfillment...
Diana's assessment of "the character's" suitability to be King will turn out to be spot on and he'll hand over the Throne to William within a decade I suspect...
On topic - I agree with TSE, it's an amusing sequence of events, but isn't going to happen. He won't be selected, if he's selected he won't win, if he wins he still won't be next leader. A bit more plausible than Ian Blackford, I concede.
If Johnson were to resign, e.g. because of Partygate, the Tories would have to decide if they wanted calm moderation (the overwhelmingly obvious candidate for that being Hunt, not Tugendhat or Javid) or a defender of the faith (presumably Truss). If Johnson had resigned due to embarrassing circusmtances, they might feel that prudence suggested the former. But I'm not sure that the current membership is that level-headed.
I'm a constituent of Hunt's and like him, though not to the point of voting for him or the Tories. But I do know lots of ex-Tories who would return to the fold if he were leader.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
Because William was right in there changing police statements and briefing the sun... I understand their anger, although at some point it becomes a thing of its own, rather than a genuine grievance, but William for one was surely blameless.
Unless 18 to 24 year olds change their minds we would have Labour governments for all eternity and would have one now given 18 to 24s have voted Labour at every UK general election since 1983!
However. Observe the all UK figures instead. There is a substantial minority who think the Monarchy should come to an end soon. Ultra Monarchists could lift their heads from their grovelling and reflect exactly why that should be so?
Yes leftwing socialists make up about a third of the UK population and are also Republicans. No surprise there, who cares, certainly not me, they can be ignored as on everything else
It truly is baffling. "I'm the only Tory in the village" who doesn't have a clue what his party actually believes in. One third of the population "can be ignored"?
Ignored?
Remember how Harold Macmillan campaigned on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built? Or even Thatcher with help to buy to bring the "ignored" on board? Or her appointing commissions to pour investment into post-industrial areas, Liverpool being one of them?
Ignored? You are a laughable pitiable fool of a politician. Perfect for the crooked lying corrupt Conservative party of today. Congratulations.
Of course, we have a Tory majority government so socialists can and will be ignored.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
I read she used to take advice from Frank Field though not really sure you can call him a "Socialist" lol.
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Unless 18 to 24 year olds change their minds we would have Labour governments for all eternity and would have one now given 18 to 24s have voted Labour at every UK general election since 1983!
However. Observe the all UK figures instead. There is a substantial minority who think the Monarchy should come to an end soon. Ultra Monarchists could lift their heads from their grovelling and reflect exactly why that should be so?
Yes leftwing socialists make up about a third of the UK population and are also Republicans. No surprise there, who cares, certainly not me, they can be ignored as on everything else
It truly is baffling. "I'm the only Tory in the village" who doesn't have a clue what his party actually believes in. One third of the population "can be ignored"?
Ignored?
Remember how Harold Macmillan campaigned on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built? Or even Thatcher with help to buy to bring the "ignored" on board? Or her appointing commissions to pour investment into post-industrial areas, Liverpool being one of them?
Ignored? You are a laughable pitiable fool of a politician. Perfect for the crooked lying corrupt Conservative party of today. Congratulations.
Of course, we have a Tory majority government so socialists can and will be ignored.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
Thatcher brought plenty of wets into her cabinet at senior levels and did listen to them. Although as time went by she got more authoritarian it is a mistake to think she didn't take other views into account, which all sensible people should do. In fact it is noticeable that regarding the Falklands war rather than it being gung ho as you believe it to be, she asked every person in the cabinet to individually express their views in the cabinet meeting on whether we should go to war.
I would be utterly shocked if Priti declines the US request. Had she been HS back in the day, Gary McKinnon would, more likely than not, currently be in solitary confinement at Terra Haute.
Now Assange is an odious man who to an extent deserves most of what is coming to him. Perhaps just not in the USA.
It's a slightly difficult one. Leaving him out of it many have raised concerns about our extradition arrangements with the USA generally, but they are what they are. Does his case meet the requirements of the arrangements?
There's certainly plenty of opinion that as horrible a person as Assange appears to be that it is not a good idea to send anyone to American prison if possible, including from people on the right, so as Dura Ace suggests it might be popular to say no.
And while the bleating of his supporters about him having been detailed for a long time was untrue, and it was perfectly reasonable to imprison him as a flight risk when he was finally able to go through this process, given he has now spent a few years inside it might be felt there's no need to pass him to the USA to do more.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
Stop whinging and pushing your far left agenda, the monarchy will continue fir centuries. Though Charles has made clear he will have a few working royals only and open up Palaces more to the public
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
A liberal democracy whose GDP per head is $45,000 honestly does not have a huge deal to worry about.
Tone deaf and you have the gall to accuse me of speaking with "anonymous" people who confirm "my own prejudices". The people I was with on Friday were my brother and sister. My other sister, a formerly loyal lover of Boris, has turned against him. There's a reason the Queen's Speech was greeted with such ridicule giving the setting and there's a reason some people even booed Prince William and the National Anthem. The anger out there is growing.
You're complacently well off: I get it. Most of the rest of the country is now really starting to feel the pinch: big time. We are worse off than most of our competitors thanks to glaring blunders by the buffoon in No.10 and his rich Non-dom accomplice in No.11.
This is without doubt empirically the toughest economic moment of the last 40 years.
Politically, viscerally, the tide has turned.
There is evidence the country is very unhappy but the polls indicate the public are disenchanted with politicians generally
Furthermore, yesterday's poll saw approved rates for Boris and Starmer at 27% and 28% respectively and both tying as best PM at a pitiful 25%
You want a labour government but there is no indication It is going to happen and GE24 is open to a conservative or labour majority or hung
There is a lot of water to flow under the bridge in the next 2 years
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
This has literally happened at every jubilee: silver, gold, diamond.. "it's not relevant", "no-one cares", "it will be a washout" etc.
And then it happens, it's amazing and everyone enjoys it and remembers it.
I remember the silver. Gold, diamond? Not a clue
Gold at least had the boats on the Thames in the rain. We did a bbq. Very nice.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
A masterclass in confirmation bias.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Not especially, I don't just emote my prejudices on here and expect others to take them as fact: I back my views with the best evidence I can find, and my money; I listen to perspectives I don't always find comfortable, try and weigh them up, and hold my hand up and admit it (publicly) when I get things wrong.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
As a mild republican who could be convinced, royalists dissing Harry and Meghan doesn't seem a good strategy to win people to their cause. H&M apparently have their hearts in the right places, while some other Royals don't seem to have any hearts at all.
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Your point about vaccine development. Once the government commissioned the vaccine programme they were in the hands of the scientists working in academia and the private sector. How quickly they got to a working and safe vaccine wouldn't have been influenced by whom the PM was.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
We've withstood worse, during my lifetime. A liberal democracy whose GDP per head is $45,000 honestly does not have a huge deal to worry about.
Good morning! Mrs C & I were discussing this earlier. We married in the early 60's and were reasonably settled and indeed relatively quite well off in the early 70's, although I at least was regularly in contact with people who weren't. We don't recall the amount of stories of levels of poverty then. There was hardship, yes, but not the daily tales of woe that we see today. Those stories really started in the 80's, receded after 1997 but returned with a vengeance after 2015 or so.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
It has to be a party political politician however who half the country will hate, see France and the USA
It doesn't have to be. May countries have low-profile presidents who seem to be acceptable to large strands of political opinion.
Countries generally relatively small not permanent members of the UN Security Council with nuclear weapons who are also top 10 economies in the G7 and G20 like the UK.
If we were a republic we would have to have a grand imperial Presidency like that of the USA and France to reflect our power in the world and our current President would be President Johnson who would reside at Buckingham Palace and be head of the armed forces.
Low profile ceremonial Presidents like those in Germany or Ireland or Israel are also pointless, they have no more power than constitutional monarchs but nobody has heard of them outside their own nation so they do not even fulfil their role of advertising the nation like the Queen
One thing is certain. If Britain replaced the monarch with a president it would never be on the French or US model. Of course it would be something like Germany or Ireland or many other countries which are parliamentary democracies with prime ministers as heads of government holding executive power.
Whether that would be good or bad for Britain's image abroad is debatable.
Oh absolutely it would be on the France and US model, a grand imperial President to reflect our status in the world
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
Good grief, that's positively radical.
"Deaference ... should be abolished." That'll upset some on PB. And no mention of Divine Right of Kings, even. Or the C of E.
BigG does not always vote Tory unlike me
*blinks in surprise, having heard stories about Plaid Cymru*
I voted for every Tory candidate on the ballot paper
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Isn't it amazing how conversations with anonymous figures will always confirm one's own prejudices?
Yougov reguarly conducts surveys of attitudes towards the monarchy, Public opinion is a good deal more favourable towards the Queen, William and Kate, Charles, than it is towards Harry and Meghan.
Also, public opinion can move in more than one direction.
There's nothing to say that Charles and William can't increase their popularity even more.
Stick to betting on Eurovision.
A charmless post that's rather atypical of you. Disappointing.
Unless 18 to 24 year olds change their minds we would have Labour governments for all eternity and would have one now given 18 to 24s have voted Labour at every UK general election since 1983!
However. Observe the all UK figures instead. There is a substantial minority who think the Monarchy should come to an end soon. Ultra Monarchists could lift their heads from their grovelling and reflect exactly why that should be so?
Yes leftwing socialists make up about a third of the UK population and are also Republicans. No surprise there, who cares, certainly not me, they can be ignored as on everything else
It truly is baffling. "I'm the only Tory in the village" who doesn't have a clue what his party actually believes in. One third of the population "can be ignored"?
Ignored?
Remember how Harold Macmillan campaigned on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built? Or even Thatcher with help to buy to bring the "ignored" on board? Or her appointing commissions to pour investment into post-industrial areas, Liverpool being one of them?
Ignored? You are a laughable pitiable fool of a politician. Perfect for the crooked lying corrupt Conservative party of today. Congratulations.
Of course, we have a Tory majority government so socialists can and will be ignored.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
I read she used to take advice from Frank Field though not really sure you can call him a "Socialist" lol.
That's exactly what HYUFD calls every Labour MP and voter.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
This has literally happened at every jubilee: silver, gold, diamond.. "it's not relevant", "no-one cares", "it will be a washout" etc.
And then it happens, it's amazing and everyone enjoys it and remembers it.
Yes. Exactly the same was being said back in 2002 and 2012. There were are few things I'm sure of in politics, but one of them is that the monarchy will still be around in 50 years time, regardless of the views of Liverpool football fans.
See that's interesting. I remember 2012 vividly. It was the Olympics. I can't recall a Jubilee at all. Perhaps Monarchists turn up, street party with like-minded folk, have a wonderful time with a lifetime of memories to treasure, and assume everyone else is doing the same? I presume we had a Bank Holiday? I guess I went to the beach if it didn't rain.
I remember going for a run and one road was having some sort of street party. We now call it Gammon Avenue whenever we pass it.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
A liberal democracy whose GDP per head is $45,000 honestly does not have a huge deal to worry about.
Tone deaf and you have the gall to accuse me of speaking with "anonymous" people who confirm "my own prejudices". The people I was with on Friday were my brother and sister. My other sister, a formerly loyal lover of Boris, has turned against him. There's a reason the Queen's Speech was greeted with such ridicule given the setting and there's a reason some people even booed Prince William and the National Anthem. The anger out there is growing.
You're complacently well off: I get it. Most of the rest of the country is now really starting to feel the pinch: big time. We are worse off than most of our competitors thanks to glaring blunders by the buffoon in No.10 and his rich Non-dom accomplice in No.11.
This is without doubt empirically the toughest economic moment of the last 40 years.
Politically, viscerally, the tide has turned.
Tougher than the oil crises, or the 1979-80 and 1990-91 recessions? Tougher than the Great Financial Crash? Don't be absurd.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
Why on earth would you want abolish “deference in all its forms”?
It’s just an extension of courtesy - nothing to do with the royals. It’s just respect due to someone, for example because of their age.
Servility is something totally different but barely exists any more
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
It was two exceedingly poor options, but Corbyn shaded it in the crap stakes.
Yes, I don't want my comments to be seen as 'Johnson is brilliant'. He's a poor PM. But he handled Covid reasonably, and has played a blinder with Ukraine. His everyday running of the country has been poor.
I favoured Rory Stewart. He was saying the right things about Covid in March 2020 before the lockdown, and I do wonder if his knowledge of the Middle East would have led to even better decisions being made on the Ukraine crisis?
But that's the problem with counterfactuals: there is a weird universe in which Corbyn played Covid and Ukraine brilliantly, and one in which Stewart played them terribly. I just don't think they're very 'common' universes...
Horrific statistic on radio after racist killing in Buffalo. The shooter believes in 'White replacement theory' which suggests that White Americans are deliberately being replaced by immigrants.'They did a poll in Associated press four days ago which found that a third of Americans believe in it' according to BBC News
Race replacement theory is bonkers.
It is a far right conspiracy theory.
Talking of bonkers, your comparing the U.K. under Johnson to Iraq under Saddam or Zim under Mugabe was pretty much up there.
I recommended this last night in the midst of Eurovision, but R4 "Series of Repetitive Beats" documentary about New Age Travellers and the Crime Bill was an utterly fascinating look at a nation on the cusp of change. Appearance from a callow Shadow HS. One T Blair, and an obscure backbencher, one J Corbyn too. Culture War is nowt new.
Johnson in Belfast today in a dishonest broker role to get all parties into Stormont and supporting his shenanigans over the Northern Ireland Protocol.
An interesting approach to the problem (he created).
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
It has to be a party political politician however who half the country will hate, see France and the USA
It doesn't have to be. May countries have low-profile presidents who seem to be acceptable to large strands of political opinion.
Countries generally relatively small not permanent members of the UN Security Council with nuclear weapons who are also top 10 economies in the G7 and G20 like the UK.
If we were a republic we would have to have a grand imperial Presidency like that of the USA and France to reflect our power in the world and our current President would be President Johnson who would reside at Buckingham Palace and be head of the armed forces
UKi s 9th and sliding. 23rd on GDP. I'd be surprised if it was even No 11 by the time the crown is cancelled.
No it isn't, it is 6th by gdp and a permanent UN Security Council member with nuclear weapons
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Isn't it amazing how conversations with anonymous figures will always confirm one's own prejudices?
Yougov reguarly conducts surveys of attitudes towards the monarchy, Public opinion is a good deal more favourable towards the Queen, William and Kate, Charles, than it is towards Harry and Meghan.
That's true but by the same token Vox Pops which theoretically have no validity can often prove to be ahead of the game. Particularly with instant news. During Brexit I found them alarming.
Starting with a Bingo Hall in Preston. 'Who supports Brexiting' asked Laura K? Everyone's hand went up. 'What's your main issue?' asked Laura. 'Immigration' They said in unison. This was week one.
You're projecting your views on to the mass of the population, who disagree. This is not a poor country, As I said, if people disliked pomp and ceremony, Republics would not adopt pomp and ceremony.
Some do, some don't. France certainly does, as do America and Russia. Switzerland has a rotation of the governing council for current head of state, and I can't remember an event with regal-style pomp and ceremony in the 15 years I lived there. Denmark has royalty, and has a bit of ceremony, but also films the Queen cycling and playing Scrabble. In Britain, perhaps because of memories of Empire, we go in for ceremony more, but I think most people would quite like the Royals to tone it down a bit.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
This has literally happened at every jubilee: silver, gold, diamond.. "it's not relevant", "no-one cares", "it will be a washout" etc.
And then it happens, it's amazing and everyone enjoys it and remembers it.
I remember the silver. Gold, diamond? Not a clue
Gold at least had the boats on the Thames in the rain. We did a bbq. Very nice.
Was Gold the one where Brian May Was strumming his guitar on the palace roof.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
The cost of living crisis is not unique to the UK but right across the globe and all countries are struggling with the consequences
The debate is how does government alleviate the impacts of for example global fuel price inflation. So far this Government has come up with a repayable loan and "steady as she goes".
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Corbyn would have kept us in lockdown for far longer than Johnson did. So, in that respect, Johnson was the better bet.
And, he would have been very half-hearted over Ukraine.
Unless 18 to 24 year olds change their minds we would have Labour governments for all eternity and would have one now given 18 to 24s have voted Labour at every UK general election since 1983!
However. Observe the all UK figures instead. There is a substantial minority who think the Monarchy should come to an end soon. Ultra Monarchists could lift their heads from their grovelling and reflect exactly why that should be so?
Yes leftwing socialists make up about a third of the UK population and are also Republicans. No surprise there, who cares, certainly not me, they can be ignored as on everything else
It truly is baffling. "I'm the only Tory in the village" who doesn't have a clue what his party actually believes in. One third of the population "can be ignored"?
Ignored?
Remember how Harold Macmillan campaigned on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built? Or even Thatcher with help to buy to bring the "ignored" on board? Or her appointing commissions to pour investment into post-industrial areas, Liverpool being one of them?
Ignored? You are a laughable pitiable fool of a politician. Perfect for the crooked lying corrupt Conservative party of today. Congratulations.
Of course, we have a Tory majority government so socialists can and will be ignored.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
I read she used to take advice from Frank Field though not really sure you can call him a "Socialist" lol.
One would be very foolish not to listen to political opponents sometimes. You never know, they might help you form a sensible view.
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
All of that pomp, ceremony and dressing up is precisely what people want.
It really isn't. Not any more. We're scrabbling around to make ends meet.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
This is not a poor country.
It is a country where a significant number of people are now struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living crisis is real and it is biting us hard.
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
A liberal democracy whose GDP per head is $45,000 honestly does not have a huge deal to worry about.
Tone deaf and you have the gall to accuse me of speaking with "anonymous" people who confirm "my own prejudices". The people I was with on Friday were my brother and sister. My other sister, a formerly loyal lover of Boris, has turned against him. There's a reason the Queen's Speech was greeted with such ridicule given the setting and there's a reason some people even booed Prince William and the National Anthem. The anger out there is growing.
You're complacently well off: I get it. Most of the rest of the country is now really starting to feel the pinch: big time. We are worse off than most of our competitors thanks to glaring blunders by the buffoon in No.10 and his rich Non-dom accomplice in No.11.
This is without doubt empirically the toughest economic moment of the last 40 years.
Politically, viscerally, the tide has turned.
Tougher than the oil crises, or the 1979-80 and 1990-91 recessions? Tougher than the Great Financial Crash? Don't be absurd.
We don’t know that it won’t be. We are just heading into it. It could be worse, we just hope it won’t be.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
This has literally happened at every jubilee: silver, gold, diamond.. "it's not relevant", "no-one cares", "it will be a washout" etc.
And then it happens, it's amazing and everyone enjoys it and remembers it.
I remember the silver. Gold, diamond? Not a clue
Gold at least had the boats on the Thames in the rain. We did a bbq. Very nice.
You're projecting your views on to the mass of the population, who disagree. This is not a poor country, As I said, if people disliked pomp and ceremony, Republics would not adopt pomp and ceremony.
Some do, some don't. France certainly does, as do America and Russia. Switzerland has a rotation of the governing council for current head of state, and I can't remember an event with regal-style pomp and ceremony in the 15 years I lived there. Denmark has royalty, and has a bit of ceremony, but also films the Queen cycling and playing Scrabble. In Britain, perhaps because of memories of Empire, we go in for ceremony more, but I think most people would quite like the Royals to tone it down a bit.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Your point about vaccine development. Once the government commissioned the vaccine programme they were in the hands of the scientists working in academia and the private sector. How quickly they got to a working and safe vaccine wouldn't have been influenced by whom the PM was.
1) Would Corbyn have commissioned the vaccine program in the same manner? Do you think there's a chance that he would have either tried to be a partner in the European program, or even gone with (say) the Chinese vaccines, or even the Russian Sputnik one?
2) It all had to be paid for. No funding, no program.
This is a man who will not even say whether he has been vaccinated - something I think is vital for *all* politicians in this crisis. It isn't particularly personal information, and it is sure as heck not as if they're telling the public if they've ever had an STD. I see zero reason that he would not let his own personal ideology creep - or lead - the vaccine program. And that would have been a disaster.
You're projecting your views on to the mass of the population, who disagree. This is not a poor country, As I said, if people disliked pomp and ceremony, Republics would not adopt pomp and ceremony.
Some do, some don't. France certainly does, as do America and Russia. Switzerland has a rotation of the governing council for current head of state, and I can't remember an event with regal-style pomp and ceremony in the 15 years I lived there. Denmark has royalty, and has a bit of ceremony, but also films the Queen cycling and playing Scrabble. In Britain, perhaps because of memories of Empire, we go in for ceremony more, but I think most people would quite like the Royals to tone it down a bit.
Even a country as small as Latvia celebrates its independence day with huge pomp and ceremony (having been in Riga at the time).
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Isn't it amazing how conversations with anonymous figures will always confirm one's own prejudices?
Yougov reguarly conducts surveys of attitudes towards the monarchy, Public opinion is a good deal more favourable towards the Queen, William and Kate, Charles, than it is towards Harry and Meghan.
That's true but by the same token Vox Pops which theoretically have no validity can often prove to be ahead of the game. Particularly with instant news. During Brexit I found them alarming.
Starting with a Bingo Hall in Preston. 'Who supports Brexiting' asked Laura K? Everyone's hand went up. 'What's your main issue?' asked Laura. 'Immigration' They said in unison. This was week one.
I suggest that they're even unhappier about immigration now.
Unless 18 to 24 year olds change their minds we would have Labour governments for all eternity and would have one now given 18 to 24s have voted Labour at every UK general election since 1983!
However. Observe the all UK figures instead. There is a substantial minority who think the Monarchy should come to an end soon. Ultra Monarchists could lift their heads from their grovelling and reflect exactly why that should be so?
Yes leftwing socialists make up about a third of the UK population and are also Republicans. No surprise there, who cares, certainly not me, they can be ignored as on everything else
It truly is baffling. "I'm the only Tory in the village" who doesn't have a clue what his party actually believes in. One third of the population "can be ignored"?
Ignored?
Remember how Harold Macmillan campaigned on how many hundreds of thousands of council houses his government had built? Or even Thatcher with help to buy to bring the "ignored" on board? Or her appointing commissions to pour investment into post-industrial areas, Liverpool being one of them?
Ignored? You are a laughable pitiable fool of a politician. Perfect for the crooked lying corrupt Conservative party of today. Congratulations.
Of course, we have a Tory majority government so socialists can and will be ignored.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
I read she used to take advice from Frank Field though not really sure you can call him a "Socialist" lol.
Indeed, Frank Field was more right-wing than most of the 'wet' Tory MPs Thatcher had to deal with
Horrific statistic on radio after racist killing in Buffalo. The shooter believes in 'White replacement theory' which suggests that White Americans are deliberately being replaced by immigrants.'They did a poll in Associated press four days ago which found that a third of Americans believe in it' according to BBC News
Race replacement theory is bonkers.
It is a far right conspiracy theory.
Talking of bonkers, your comparing the U.K. under Johnson to Iraq under Saddam or Zim under Mugabe was pretty much up there.
I wouldn't want anyone to live under Mugabe or Saddam, but if they did, they'd realise silly it is to compare even the shittiest governments in a prosperous democracy with theirs.
Horrific statistic on radio after racist killing in Buffalo. The shooter believes in 'White replacement theory' which suggests that White Americans are deliberately being replaced by immigrants.'They did a poll in Associated press four days ago which found that a third of Americans believe in it' according to BBC News
Race replacement theory is bonkers.
It is a far right conspiracy theory.
Talking of bonkers, your comparing the U.K. under Johnson to Iraq under Saddam or Zim under Mugabe was pretty much up there.
I didn't compare them. I compared the feeling of impotence one must feel when having a leader who is a cheat and a liar and who is known to be throughout the world and you can do nothing about it but rage.
As to your other point. I know it's bonkers what is shocking is that a third of Americans don't
Horrific statistic on radio after racist killing in Buffalo. The shooter believes in 'White replacement theory' which suggests that White Americans are deliberately being replaced by immigrants.'They did a poll in Associated press four days ago which found that a third of Americans believe in it' according to BBC News
Race replacement theory is bonkers.
It is a far right conspiracy theory.
Talking of bonkers, your comparing the U.K. under Johnson to Iraq under Saddam or Zim under Mugabe was pretty much up there.
I wouldn't want anyone to live under Mugabe or Saddam, but if they did, they'd realise silly it is to compare even the shittiest governments in a prosperous democracy with theirs.
Interesting stuff re Monarchy. The deference has gone already I feel. As has much of the overt fawning. We are now three weeks from the Jubilee. I don't see a single decoration or sign that it is taking place anywhere. I may have been a kid then, but ISTR the 1977 one and the wedding of Charles and Di being front and centre of the Nation's activity for months beforehand. Meanwhile. Yet another mass shooting in America. Racially motivated by a teenager. So commonplace it passes without comment. Deep sighs.
Edit. I see it was linked to as I typed that.
We will get a much better understanding of the monarchy's place in the great scheme of things once the Queen is no longer with us. She does unite the vast majority of us. Down here in Sidmouth there are plans for a street party and celebrations, but it is noticeable (and understandable) how backward looking and nostalgic they are. The monarchy has a lot to tell us about our past. Its big challenge is to be part of our future. Saying its better than President Johnson or Blair does not really cut the mustard, because it doesn't have to be President Johnson or Blair instead of King William.
Yes. However King William may not happen for 25 years or more. There is an assumption he'll completely modernise the institution or bring it in to the modern world, etc., etc. Except. He'll be an old man when he gets the gig most probably.
Yes, I think any modernisation has already happened or will happen with Charles (who I expect will listen very closely to William).
It's a process of evolution isn't it? It's happening very slowly already. And has always happened anyways. Having a Monarchy simply doesn't mean it is this Monarchy preserved in aspic.
Quite. Part of its success has been acting as though it's a preservation but it's not. Has the evolution gone far enough to preserve it? In the UK I think it probably has, it's on the right path.
On the jubilee people are right they are always poo poohed, but even so I think there is something in the talk this time of lack of interest.
I think that might be as it's not been that long since the last one, and it feeling a bit weird when the Queen oscso obviously fragile.
Yes, I think people are shy of this one because they worry about the Queen's health and they're starting to realize she's mortal and aren't sure what comes next.
I do feel much better about Charles now than I did 10 years ago now. And it's clear he'll be backed up from Day One by William.
I think that's a solid team.
Nah. I was speaking with two conservative minded people on Friday. One, ambivalent about the monarchy, was really critical of the Queen which surprised me. The other, royalist until now, thought the moment Andrew accompanied her down the aisle was when she lost all respect for her.
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
As a mild republican who could be convinced, royalists dissing Harry and Meghan doesn't seem a good strategy to win people to their cause. H&M apparently have their hearts in the right places, while some other Royals don't seem to have any hearts at all.
Harry has a -29% rating with British voters, Meghan -39%.
Even Camilla is more popular than Meghan now and Charles and William are far more popular than Harry
Horrific statistic on radio after racist killing in Buffalo. The shooter believes in 'White replacement theory' which suggests that White Americans are deliberately being replaced by immigrants.'They did a poll in Associated press four days ago which found that a third of Americans believe in it' according to BBC News
Race replacement theory is bonkers.
It is a far right conspiracy theory.
Talking of bonkers, your comparing the U.K. under Johnson to Iraq under Saddam or Zim under Mugabe was pretty much up there.
I didn't compare them. I compared the feeling of impotence one must feel when having a leader who is a cheat and a liar and who is known to be throughout the world and you can do nothing about it but rage
The problem David Frost has is his total inability to engage with disputants in an argument. The British historic virtue of finding "reasonable compromise" has been abandoned by many Brexiteers, with comments such as "you lost, get over it". In the case of Frost he can not construct a compromise that works, even for his own side. It is this total lack of moderation that has caused so much damage to the country over the past few years. Having voted to leave, the Ultras have pushed policies that, if announced during the referendum campaign, would have led to certain defeat. Even apart from the issue of being in the Lords, Frost would last about 3 minutes as his intransigence bled away support in all parts of Parliament. The way that he walked out of the cabinet also raises questions of personal integrity and fitness for office.
Most people understand that breaking all links with the EU carries a significant economic cost, which Britain is now paying. Triggering A14 of the protocol is a further step away from effective working arrangements with the EU and will cause significant further damage. Frost and Johnson were warned that their "wheeze" of putting a tarrif border internally between GB and NI was problematic, but they chose to do so, indeed it was their own proposal. So now we find that Lord Frost cannot even find common ground with his own proposal. This is fundamentally unserious, and it is also showing bad faith in negotiations, which is both stupid and dangerous, since it makes it progressively harder to make further agreements when you renege on the one you have already negotiated.
So I dont think Frost has a cat in hell´s chance of getting to number 10, and that the electorate is getting heartily sick of the constant Trumpian (or even Putinist) doubling down on issues of crisis and dispute. Sooner or later the UK needs to codify a set of compromises with the EU, which is what the majority of the British voters clearly support. Whereas a government led by Johnson offers only posturing and bad faith. The voters are getting very tired of this. Revolutions usually devour their children and the Brexit revolution is unlikely to be the exception. I think a Tory rout on the scale of 1997 is rapidly increasing in likelihood, and this is partly because the incremental costs of Brexit will get disproportionate blame as the British economy gets battered over the next few years.
While all economies will be damaged by the process of deglobalisation exacerbated by the impact of the Russian war in Ukraine, Britain faces extra pressures because of Brexit and the voters will hardly fail to notice weaker British economic performance. Unless the Tories can find an off ramp -to use the jargon of the day- they are going to be in serious trouble. Any Conservative leader will struggle. Frost will never make it.
The latest polls only give a hung parliament, nowhere near 1997 style Labour landslide
Johnson in Belfast today in a dishonest broker role to get all parties into Stormont and supporting his shenanigans over the Northern Ireland Protocol.
An interesting approach to the problem (he created).
Seems unlikely that some of the norniron politicians won't call him stupid and a liar. Just quote his idiocy back to him.
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn and a lot more would have been spent on ensuring people on low incomes did not have to go to work while the pandemic raged. Care homes would also have been better looked after. Vaccine procurement would certainly have been an issue, but the roll-out would have happened against a backdrop of fewer initial deaths.
Corbyn would have had to have stopped sending help to Ukraine as he would have inherited a situation where it was happening, so it would have been an issue from Day One of his premiership.
Of course, he would have been a desperately poor PM and he should never have been offered as a choice. Having seen Johnson's performance over the last two and a half years - and in particular his attacks on our democracy and the rule of law - I just don't think Corbyn would have been worse.
You have zero evidence any of that would have happened. As an example: "The UK would have locked down far earlier under Corbyn". We locked down on the 23rd March. How much earlier do you think 'far' earlier was?
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
Your point about vaccine development. Once the government commissioned the vaccine programme they were in the hands of the scientists working in academia and the private sector. How quickly they got to a working and safe vaccine wouldn't have been influenced by whom the PM was.
The purchasing scheme and the inspired appointment of Kate Bingham were. My score card for government is for Covid a mixture of good, very good and very poor averaging as quite good. Ukraine excellent, one of the best responses of any government. A little valid criticism over undiplomatic speeches perhaps but they are minor. I strongly dislike the PM and much the government does and says. The trouble is on two of the three big issues (the other being economics/Brexit) I not only feel they are many orders of magnitude preferable to a Corbyn government but probably have done better than an SKS Labour government. This is one reason I am in a dislocated space in terms of politics at the moment (translation: will probably vote LD).
On topic, Frost is the last person the conservative party need as a leader at this time of great insensitivity over NIP, actually that should read at 'anytime'
On the monarchy, the queen has been the glue that has held it together over 7 decades but that is coming to an end and the monarchy with it's archaic traditions will have to go through colossal change to make itself relevant to modern day UK
Deference in all its forms should be abolished, as should all the parading around in military uniforms with lots of meaningless medals on display.
At the state opening of Parliament, Charles looked and sounded like a very old man and he is not the future
I do believe William and Kate understand just how rapidly this change is coming and I expect in fairly quick time we will see a much reduced monarchy no longer touring with great pomp and ceremony the commonwealth countries, nor any more bowing or walking backwards in deference, and the end of ridiculous military dressing up
I do believe most would accept a less formal, more modern monarchy, as I cannot see many wanting a republic with a President Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nadine Dories, JRM or ANO
Why on earth would you want abolish “deference in all its forms”?
It’s just an extension of courtesy - nothing to do with the royals. It’s just respect due to someone, for example because of their age.
Servility is something totally different but barely exists any more
Interesting. I respect those who have achieved stuff. So academics, doctors, actors, writers etc etc. I don’t automatically respect royalty, as they were literally born to it. But I can respect how they have taken the hand given to them. I quite like Edward as I met him fairly frequently (he is our Chancellor) and I officiate at graduation. He’s genial, friendly, but also needs to be managed by his team at all times. He’s not achieved a lot in life, but never really had the choice either. On Camilla, I think generally the public have warmed to her. Diana has receded into history - anyone under 30 will have no real memory of her. She seems down to earth. I suspect she has been good for Charles, who has been less divisive in recent years. Instinctively I am a republican, and would shed no tears if the queen was the last monarch.
The funny thing about the Mail's reactionary outrage is that it will make it more of a 'thing' to boo the royals.
They really do shoot themselves in the foot.
I find it interesting though. I'm not sure I would boo William but I get this sense at the moment that reminds me so much of 1992-7. During that time there was this same reactionary 'Back to Basics' guff and outrage from the right wing press. The same Nasty Party rearing its ugly head. But all the while the country was getting ready to move on.
Times they are a changing.
No it doesn't at all, just shows the fact that Liverpool is the most socialist city in the UK after Glasgow and does not have a single Tory MP. Indeed every MP in Liverpool is Labour and there are no Tory councillors in Liverpool either despite the Tory landslide in the rest of the UK in 2019
Liverpool - the city, the people - feel a visceral outrage towards the establishment due to the Hillsborough cover-up. Thats all it is. As "the most socialist city in the UK" they had a LibDem council recently.
So its not socialism, you can't make simplistic sneering comments like that. Or you can, if you want to fuel their justified hate for your lot.
The only time Liverpool did not have a Labour Council this century was in the Blair years when Charles Kennedy's LDs were arguably more socialist than Blair's New Labour. So that does not defeat the point at all. Now every Liverpool MP is Labour and the council is Labour controlled too.
Liverpool is a socialist city
Genuine delusion. You don't have a point for me to defeat. Its literally you talking utter laughable bollocks and doubling down over and over and over.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson, but David Frost could be it. A man of no achievement with a sub-mediocre mind with no political experience and no support base of any kind beyond the comment pages of the Telegraph would be an absolute disaster. Not even the Taliban Tories would be so stupid, would they?
"It is almost impossible to imagine a worse choice for Prime Minister than Boris Johnson"
It is far, far from impossible. Labour's candidate for the 2019 GE is an example: particularly given the two crises that have faced the country since then. Corbyn would have been disastrous with both the Covid crisis and the Ukrainian War. The former we did not do too badly at, nor well; but on the latter we've done very well indeed IMO.
And we came very near having PM Corbyn during both of these.
I'd hope both parties consider this and try to get leaders who are more competent than Johnson or Corbyn.
I always thought that Johnson was the better choice than Corbyn, but now I am not so sure. Labour MPs at least sought to remove Corbyn and would have had a lot of control over him if he had got into office. I am not sure they would have played along with him undoing the UK's democracy in the way that Tory MPs have allowed Johnson to do.
I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. And Ukraine would have seen him toppled.
"I suspect that Corbyn's handling of Covid would have produced similar overall results to Johnson's. "
Why do you suspect that? He has refused to say if he has been vaccinated. It was vital for politicians to encourage as many people as possible to get vaccinated, which was why we saw politicians publicising getting vaccinated once it was their turn. Corbyn sadly has quite a following in a demographic where (AIUI) vaccination rates are lower, and his unequivocally saying that he had been vaccinated would have helped.
I'm also unsure how well he would have tackled vaccine procurement, given the inclusion of big pharma (boo, hiss).
"And Ukraine would have seen him toppled."
Which would have been too late to help Ukraine.
It was two exceedingly poor options, but Corbyn shaded it in the crap stakes.
Yes, I don't want my comments to be seen as 'Johnson is brilliant'. He's a poor PM. But he handled Covid reasonably, and has played a blinder with Ukraine. His everyday running of the country has been poor.
I favoured Rory Stewart. He was saying the right things about Covid in March 2020 before the lockdown, and I do wonder if his knowledge of the Middle East would have led to even better decisions being made on the Ukraine crisis?
But that's the problem with counterfactuals: there is a weird universe in which Corbyn played Covid and Ukraine brilliantly, and one in which Stewart played them terribly. I just don't think they're very 'common' universes...
There will be a massive polling boost for Boris, after a nation overjoyed at winning the Eurovision jury vote starts demanding we erect a statue of him in every town square....
Comments
Lots of dislike still out there for Camilla. Charles is a self-entitled prig who deals with dodgy Saudis. His brother Andrew was "closely connected" to paedophile Epstein. Anne is stuck up her own posterior. Edward and Sophie should be booted out to go and do a proper job. The Firm drove Diana to her death, almost literally. They're a rotten bunch.
Next generation don't show signs of being that much better. Harry and Meghan saw the rot and jumped ship.
Times are a changing and you can see if from the reactionary outrage on the right wing. Most amusing.
Either they properly modernise, cut the crap, sell off 75% of their houses, pare right down to three or four working royals.
Or they're finished.
The country's moving on.
I'm not at all surprised by Hitchens' view. He views the West as a degenerate hell-hole. Assange is anti-West, therefore my enemy's enemy is my friend.
Hitchens has had a bad war in Ukraine.
So to get such a referendum you would need a Labour majority government or one propped up by the SNP. However even Starmer has said he now backs a reformed monarchy unlike his predecessor the republican Corbyn and even Sturgeon has said she would keep the monarchy too
You don't believe that, you're lost in your own world. It's not this country's.
Yougov reguarly conducts surveys of attitudes towards the monarchy, Public opinion is a good deal more favourable towards the Queen, William and Kate, Charles, than it is towards Harry and Meghan.
Whether that would be good or bad for Britain's image abroad is debatable.
The idea Thatcher ever listened to socialists is laughable, she spent her life fighting them and launched right to buy so more owned their own property creating fewer socialists.
Not for a quarter of a century have I felt such a growing tide of change. The polls may not yet reflect it, and that's partly the fault of Starmer and Corbyn's legacy, but the Conservative reign is coming to an end as assuredly as that of Her Majesty the Queen.
I think it’s great that the Mail focused on their charitable purpose not their colour
By your own idiotic definition you are not a true Tory.
And can be ignored.
I met him briefly when he visited Broxtowe, incidentally - perfectly pleasant.
Essentially I think he needs to choose between being a campaigner for causes that he supports or a constitutional monarch in waiting, with all the self-imposed restraint which that implies. I'm not sure he'll be happy doing the latter, but there are lots of people like me who think the monarchy is a bit odd but part of our tradition, so OK so long as it's strictly constitutional. A monarch who interferes to pursue personal beliefs is definitely not appropriate for today's world, and would undermine support for the institution.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDailyShow/status/1525635226415808513
The US is in a very bad place with mainstream media broadcasting this stuff.
Like this?
To get a republic, you need a government who'd actively try and bring it about. I can't see where it's coming.
There's nothing to say that Charles and William can't increase their popularity even more.
You're complacently well off: I get it. Most of the rest of the country is now really starting to feel the pinch: big time. We are worse off than most of our competitors thanks to glaring blunders by the buffoon in No.10 and his rich Non-dom accomplice in No.11.
This is without doubt empirically the toughest economic moment of the last 40 years.
Politically, viscerally, the tide has turned.
(at 9.28)
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1525633002545496064
The reality is you don’t need *anyone* to officially open a new office or whatever. But people like it when someone shows up - it could just as easily be a low rent celebrity
Even in poor countries they have pomp and deference for leaders (some to a shocking degree), the idea that is really the issue (as opposed to the principle of a monarchical system, for some), makes as little sense as when people claim minor arcane procedures or traditions of the Commons are why people don't connect with it as an institution, as though modernising to allow them to directly name one another would register with the public.
People have no nuance on this issue. Nothing is a certain to continue on forever, but neither is polling of younger people in particular not being enthusiastic or the jubilee not exciting people a certain indication that 'the country's moving on'. It's like people think the monarchy has never had a difficult period before. And it's not even at that period yet, people just think it might be approaching one.
Despite waiting all these years to ascend I suspect when he gets there he will find the limitations of the job suffocating and impossible. He comes across as a fundamentally unhappy person who will never find true fulfillment...
Diana's assessment of "the character's" suitability to be King will turn out to be spot on and he'll hand over the Throne to William within a decade I suspect...
If Johnson were to resign, e.g. because of Partygate, the Tories would have to decide if they wanted calm moderation (the overwhelmingly obvious candidate for that being Hunt, not Tugendhat or Javid) or a defender of the faith (presumably Truss). If Johnson had resigned due to embarrassing circusmtances, they might feel that prudence suggested the former. But I'm not sure that the current membership is that level-headed.
I'm a constituent of Hunt's and like him, though not to the point of voting for him or the Tories. But I do know lots of ex-Tories who would return to the fold if he were leader.
I understand their anger, although at some point it becomes a thing of its own, rather than a genuine grievance, but William for one was surely blameless.
What got us out of the mess was vaccine development, purchase and roll-out. Lockdowns gave us time; vaccines have given us freedom. I see *zero* reason to believe that Corbyn would have done as well as this government did in any of those areas, and plenty of indications that he would have done worse.
There's certainly plenty of opinion that as horrible a person as Assange appears to be that it is not a good idea to send anyone to American prison if possible, including from people on the right, so as Dura Ace suggests it might be popular to say no.
And while the bleating of his supporters about him having been detailed for a long time was untrue, and it was perfectly reasonable to imprison him as a flight risk when he was finally able to go through this process, given he has now spent a few years inside it might be felt there's no need to pass him to the USA to do more.
Furthermore, yesterday's poll saw approved rates for Boris and Starmer at 27% and 28% respectively and both tying as best PM at a pitiful 25%
You want a labour government but there is no indication It is going to happen and GE24 is open to a conservative or labour majority or hung
There is a lot of water to flow under the bridge in the next 2 years
Do you?
Mrs C & I were discussing this earlier. We married in the early 60's and were reasonably settled and indeed relatively quite well off in the early 70's, although I at least was regularly in contact with people who weren't. We don't recall the amount of stories of levels of poverty then. There was hardship, yes, but not the daily tales of woe that we see today.
Those stories really started in the 80's, receded after 1997 but returned with a vengeance after 2015 or so.
Have a good morning, Jonathan.
It’s just an extension of courtesy - nothing to do with the royals. It’s just respect due to someone, for example because of their age.
Servility is something totally different but barely exists any more
I favoured Rory Stewart. He was saying the right things about Covid in March 2020 before the lockdown, and I do wonder if his knowledge of the Middle East would have led to even better decisions being made on the Ukraine crisis?
But that's the problem with counterfactuals: there is a weird universe in which Corbyn played Covid and Ukraine brilliantly, and one in which Stewart played them terribly. I just don't think they're very 'common' universes...
It is a far right conspiracy theory.
Talking of bonkers, your comparing the U.K. under Johnson to Iraq under Saddam or Zim under Mugabe was pretty much up there.
Appearance from a callow Shadow HS. One T Blair, and an obscure backbencher, one J Corbyn too.
Culture War is nowt new.
An interesting approach to the problem (he created).
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/
Starting with a Bingo Hall in Preston. 'Who supports Brexiting' asked Laura K? Everyone's hand went up. 'What's your main issue?' asked Laura. 'Immigration' They said in unison. This was week one.
Rolf Harris and Lenny Henry were at one too.
And, he would have been very half-hearted over Ukraine.
It seems to be you who is uncomfortable with his calling out racist propaganda.
The RAF used to have a base on Benbecula though, I remember Nimrods landing there.
#PBPedantry
Liverpool is a socialist city
2) It all had to be paid for. No funding, no program.
This is a man who will not even say whether he has been vaccinated - something I think is vital for *all* politicians in this crisis. It isn't particularly personal information, and it is sure as heck not as if they're telling the public if they've ever had an STD. I see zero reason that he would not let his own personal ideology creep - or lead - the vaccine program. And that would have been a disaster.
As to your other point. I know it's bonkers what is shocking is that a third of Americans don't
Even Camilla is more popular than Meghan now and Charles and William are far more popular than Harry
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/09/03/public-opinion-continues-fall-harry-and-meghan
On Camilla, I think generally the public have warmed to her. Diana has receded into history - anyone under 30 will have no real memory of her. She seems down to earth. I suspect she has been good for Charles, who has been less divisive in recent years.
Instinctively I am a republican, and would shed no tears if the queen was the last monarch.
As Wogan said to David Icke, "they're laughing AT you"
Then he woke up.